NOV  30 1910      *j 


Division 


••) 


:S)'65 


A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SCIENCES 
Astronomy,  by  Prof.  George  Forbes,  F.R.S. 
Chemistry,  2   volumes,  by  Sir   Edward    Thorpf,, 
C.B.,   D  Sc,  F.R.S.,  etc.     (Director  of  Govern- 
ment Laboratories) 
Old  Testament  Criticism,  by  Prof.  Archibald  Duff 
(Prof,  of  Hebrew  and  Old  Testament  Theology  in 
the  United  College,  Bradford) 
In  Active  Preparation — 

New  Testament  Criticism,  by  F.  C.  Conybeare, 
M.A.  (Late  Fellow  and  Prselector  of  Univ.  Coll., 
Oxford) 

Geology,  by  H.  B.  Woodward,  F.R.S.,  F.G.S. 
(Assistant  Director  of  Geological  Survey) 

Geography,  by  Dr.  Scott  Keltie,  F.R.G.S.,  F.S.A. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 
New  York  London 


Paul  de  Lagarde. 

Dr.  Phil.  et.  Theol.,  Professor  of  Semitic  Philology,  Gottingen. 


A   HISTOR  Y  OF   THE  SCIENCES 


^y    .^.^^-% 


PB/,!^f> 


HISTOR^     NOV  3OI910     > 

OLD  TESTAMENT 
CRITICISM 


ARCHIBALD   DUFF,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

PROFESSOR    OF    HEBREW   AND    OLD   TESTAMENT    THEOLOGY    IN  THE    UNITED 
COLLEGE,    BRADFORD 


IV/T//  I L LUSTRA  TIONS 


G.  P.   PUTNAM'S  SONS 
NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON 

Cbc  IRnichcvbocl^er   |prc66 

1910 


Copyright    iqio 

BY 

G.   P.   PUTNAM'S  SONS 


This  series  is  published  in  London  by 
The   Rationalist  PriiSS  Association,  Limited 


Xibe  'Rnicfterbocfter  press,  mew  lorft 


DEDICATED    IN 

GRATEFUL   DEVOTION   AND    REMEMBRANCE 

TO    THE   MEMORY    OF    MY 

BRILLIANT   AND    BELOVED    TEACHER 

PAUL    DE    LAGARDE 


The  History  of  Chemistry:  Vol.  I.  circa  2000  B.C. 
to  1850  A.D.     Vol.  II.  1850  A.D.  to  date. 

By  Sir  Edward  Thorpe,  C.B.,  LL.D.,  F.R.S., 

Director  of  the  Government  Laboratories, 
London;  Professor-elect  and  Director  of 
the  Chemical  Laboratories  of  the  Imperial 
College  of  Science  and  Technology;  author 
of  A  Dictionary  of  Applied  Chemistry. 

To  he  followed  by: 

The  History  of  Geography. 

By  Dr.  John  Scott  Keltie,  F.R.G.S.,  F.S.S., 
F.S.A.,  Hon.  Mem.  Geographical  Societies 
of  Paris,  Berlin,  Rome,  Brussels,  Amster- 
dam, Geneva,  etc.;  author  of  Report  on 
Geographical  Education,  Applied  GeograpJiy. 

The  History  of  Geology. 

By  Horace  B.  Woodward,  F.R.S.,  F.G.S., 

Assistant-Director  of  Geological  Survey  of 
England  and  Wales;  author  of  The  Geology 
of  England  and  Wales,  etc. 

The  History  of  Anthropology. 

By  A.  C.  Haddon,  M.A.,  Sc.D.,  F.R.S.,  Lec- 
turer in  Ethnology,  Cambridge  and  Lon- 
don; author  of  Study  of  Man,  Magic  and 
Fetishism,  etc. 

The  History  of  Old  Testament  Criticism. 

By  Archibald  Duff,  Professor  of  Hebrew 
and  Old  Testament  Theology  in  the  United 


College,  Bradford;  author  of  Theology  and 
Ethics  of  the  Hebrews,  Modern  Old  Testament 
Theology,  etc. 

The  History  of  New  Testament  Criticism. 

By  F.  C.  CoNYBEARE,  M.A.,  late  Fellow  and 
Praelector  of  Univ.  Coll.,  Oxford;  Fellow 
of  the  British  Academy;  Doctor  of  Theol- 
ogy, honoris  causa,  of  Giessen;  Officer  d' 
Academic;  author  of  Old  Armenian  Texts  oj 
Revelation,  etc. 

Further  volumes  are  in  plan  on  the  following 
subjects: 

Mathematics  and  Mechanics. 

Molecular  Physics,  Heat,  Life,  and  Electricity. 

Human  Physiology,  Embryology,  and  Heredity. 

Acoustics,  Harmonics,  and  the  Physiology  of 
Hearing,  together  with  Optics  Chromatics,  and 
Physiology  of  Seeing. 

Psychology,  Analytic,  Comparative,  and  Ex- 
perimental. 

Sociology  and  Economics. 

Ethics. 

Comparative  Philology. 

Criticism,   Historical   Research,    and   Legends. 

Comparative  Mythology  and  the  Science  of 
Religions. 


The  Criticism  of  Ecclesiastical  Institutions, 

Culture,  Moral  and  Intellectual,  as  Reflected  in 
Imaginative  Literature  and  in  the  Fine  Arts. 

Logic. 

Philosophy. 

Education. 


Preface 

1AM  asked  to  tell  to  a  large  body  of  thoughtful 
readers  what  has  been  the  story  of  the  criti- 
cal cr  literary  handling  of  the  Old  Testament 
throughout  the  ages,  as  scientific  study  of  that 
literature  is  at  present  showing  what  the  story 
has  been.  I  am  told,  with  admirable  frankness, 
that  the  only  condition  laid  upon  me  is  that  my 
tale  be  the  true  one ;  I  am  kindly  given  to  under- 
stand that  the  Directorate  of  the  publication  have 
full  confidence  in  my  spirit  and  method,  as  these 
have  been  shown  in  my  various  works.  For  this 
confidence  I  am  bound  to  utter  my  heartfelt  and 
deep  gratitude,  in  the  belief  that  such  a  trust 
will  inspire  me  to  leave  no  jot  or  tittle  of  due 
exposition  unrecorded. 

Under  a  sense  of  spiritual  compulsion  upon  me 
to  set  forth  the  beautiful  record  to  every  ear 
that  will  hear,  I  set  out  on  the  task,  feeling  most 
deeply  my  feebleness,  but  knowing  also  that 
strength  is  always  sufficient  as  one  goes  forward 
in  the  course  of  duty. 

I  have  elsewhere  shown  why  I  do  not  confine 
the  History  to  the  Christian  era ,  and  I  feel  that 


X  ^  Preface 

the  proper  method  which  I  have  tried  to  follow 
will  help  to  lift  away  the  benumbing  and  entirely 
mistaken  fancy  concerning  Scriptures  as  sacred 
in  the  sense  of  unalterable. 

A.  D. 
April,  igio. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAGE 

Of  the  Ideal  and  the  Plan  i 

CHAPTER  11. 

How     THE     Hebrews    Criticised     Their    Own 

Literature 14 

I. — Criticism  in  the  Earliest  Narratives 14 

2. — Early  Criticism  of  Ethical  Writings 26 

3. — Early  Criticism  of  Prophet's  Oracles 34 

4, — Hebrew   Criticism   in   the   Exile    in  Babylon  41 

CHAPTER  HI. 

Of  Criticism  among  the  Jews 48 

I. — Under  Persian  Rule,  500  to  300  b.c 48 

2, — Criticism  of  the  Jewish  Commentators  under 

Greek  Influence 64 

3. — Under  the  New  Kingdom,  150  B.C.  to  a.d.  i  73 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Early    Christian's    Treatment    of     the     Old 

Testament   83 

I. — From  Jesus   to   the  Fixture  of  the  Canon..  83 

2. — Criticism  of  Origen  and  his  Comrades 92 

3. — Jerome's  Orthodox  Canonic  Text 99 

xi 


xii  Contents 

CHAPTER  V. 

PAGE 

Criticism  by  the  Jewish  Rabbis io6 

I. — Outline  from  A.D.  i  to  the  Reformation io6 

2. — Jewish  Use  of  the  Old  Testament   in  Their 

Synagogal  Expositions    io8 

3. — The  Criticism  of  Baruch  Spinoza 129 

CHAPTER  VI. 

From  Spinoza  to  Astruc  137 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Modern    Criticism    from    Astruc    until    the 

Present 148 

I. — Aids  and  Hindrances , 148 

2. — Discovery  of  the  Foundation  Document 157 

3. — Unravelling  of  the  Two  Earliest  Sources.  .  .  160 

4. — Concerning  the  Law  Codes 163 

5. — The  Determination  of  the  Dates 167 

6. — The  Reconstruction  of  the  History 175 

7. — Criticism   of   the   non-Pentateuchal   Books.  .  180 

Bibliography 189 

Index   195 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


PAGE 

Paul  de  Lagarde,  Dr.  Phil,  et  Theol.,  Professor  of 
Semitic  Philology,  Gottingen Frontispiece 

Julius  Wellhausen,  Dr.  Theol.,  Professor  of  Old 

Testament  Theology,  Gottingen 33 

The  Rev.  Canon  T.  K.  Cheyne,  D.  Litt.,  D.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Old  Testament  Interpretation,  Oxford.        35 

Benjamin  Wisner  Bacon,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Theology,  Yale  University,  New- 
haven, U.S. A 51 

Bernhard    Duhm,    Dr.    Theol.,    Professor   of    Old 

Testament  Theology,  Basel 67 

Benedictus  de  Spinoza    109 

Jean  Astruc,  Dr.  Med.,  Royal  Physician  and  Pro- 
fessor of  Medicine,  Paris 147 

Johann  Karl  Wilhelm  Vatke,  Dr.  Theol.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Old  Testament  Theology,  Berlin 150 

Bernhard  Stade,  Dr.  Theol.  et  Phil.,  Professor  of 

Old  Testament  Theology,  Giessen 152 

The  Right   Rev.   John  William    Colenso,   D.D., 

Anglican  Bishop  of  Natal 155 

Hermann  Hupfeld,  Dr.  Theol.,  Professor  of  Old 

Testament  Theology,  Halle-a-S 162 

Wilhelm  Martin  Leberecht  De  Wette,  Dr. 
Theol.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament  Theology, 
Berlin 164 

Abraham    Kuenen,  Dr.  Theol.,  Professor    of    The- 
ology, University  of  Leyden 169 

Karl  David  Ilgen,  Dr.  Theol.,  Professor  of  The- 
ology, Jena  University 171 

Karl   Budde,   Dr.   Theol.,   Professor  of  Theology, 

Marburg  University 181 

Heinrich   Ewald,    Dr.    Theol.,    Professor    of    Old 

Testament  Theology,  Gottingen 185 

xiii 


HISTORY  OF  OLD 
TESTAMENT  CRITICISM 


Chapter  I 

Of  Our  Ideal,  and  Our  Plan 
I.   The  Ideal 

WHERE  shall  we  begin  with  this  History? 
At  what  date  ?  Commonly  the  Teachers 
of  various  sorts  concerning  the  matter  before 
us  start  at  the  year  a.d.  i.     But  why? 

I.  vSuch  questions  arise  at  once  most  natur- 
ally when  we  set  out  to  study  the  history  of  any 
subject.  But  the  query  alters  itself  speedily, 
for  a  thoughtful  mind,  into  the  moral  question, 
"Where  ought  we  to  begin?"  In  this  day  of 
scientific  thinking,  in  this  age  whose  students 
seek  to  find  just  the  facts  and  then  to  systematise 
these,  calling  the  result  Science,  it  is  quite  clear 
that,  to  get  all  of  the  facts,  we  must  trace  the 
stream  of  phenomena  right  up  to  the  first 
I 


2  Old  Testament  Criticism 

fountain-head.  Where,  then,  shall  we  begin  to 
observe  the  process  and  the  course  or  history  of 
the  criticism  of  a  literature?  Undoubtedly  we 
ought  to  run  right  back  to  the  very  beginning 
of  the  process,  and  of  the  course  and  history  of 
the  literature  itself.  Can  any  good  reason  be 
given  why  we  should  not?  Surely,  then,  if  we 
can  trace  Hebrew  literary  monuments  back  to 
900  B.C.,  we  are  bound  to  ask  how  the  Hebrew 
men  of  that  time,  nine  centuries  before  our  era, 
thought  about  their  literature.  Their  think- 
ing about  it  was,  surely,  always  their  having 
some  opinion  about  it,  and  this  thinking  was 
a  judging  concerning  it;  in  scientific  phrase, 
it  was  a  criticism.  Therefore,  our  History  of 
Criticism  must  vSet  out,  at  least,  at  900  B.C. — 
else  it  will  be  a  headless  body,  and  virtually 
useless. 

2.  But  such  a  beginning  has  been  commonly 
and  singularly  neglected;  indeed,  this  neglect 
has  been  one  of  the  notable  features  m  the 
history  of  the  matter.  If  we  examine  Diestel's 
work  on  The  History  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
the  Christian  Church,^  the  handy,  if  now  some- 
what old,  text-book  on  such  study,  we  find  the 
very  title  begging  the  whole  question.  A  few 
words  are  devoted  by  Diestel  to  the  real  owners 
of  the  noble  old  literature,  but  they  are  doubly 

^  For  full  statements  of  titles,  etc.,  of  books  quoted 
see  our  Bibliography. 


Of  Our  Ideal,  and  Our  Plan  3 

curious.  All  that  is  said  runs  thus  (p.  7  f .) : 
"Christianity  appeared  at  a  time  when  Judaism 
was  passing  through  a  process  of  fermentation. 
This  fermentation  was  certain  either  to  burst 
its  national  limits  or  to  degrade  itself  into  a 
lifeless  form.  For  while  the  Old  Testament  was 
then  the  supreme  avithority  in  every  sense,  yet 
the  application  of  this  authority  had  long  lacked 
that  inmiediateness  which  marks  the  fresh 
vitality  of  a  real  spiritual  power."  Now,  with- 
out lingering  to  point  out  some  startling  and 
groundless  assumptions  here  made,  we  may 
simply  say  that  Diestel  gives  himself  away, 
and  vitiates  his  v/ork  entirely,  by  implying  that 
there  had  indeed  been,  once  upon  a  time,  a  day 
of  "real  spiritual  power"  and  of  "fresh  vitality,  " 
and  of  "immediateness."  If  there  had  been 
these,  why  does  he  fail  entirely  to  include  the 
story  of  such  great  things  in  his  History  ?  Surely 
an  exposition  of  them  was  essential  for  a  clear 
comprehension  of  the  "Christian"  use  of  this 
great  old  literature.  If  Diestel  had  not  been 
bound  in  chains  and  iron,  as  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  show,  he  could  have  told  of  the  days 
of  "fresh  vitality"  all  along  the  line  of  the  ten 
centuries  B.C.;  and  especially  he  could  have 
illustrated  that  most  vigorous  "immediateness" 
and  "spiritual  power"  which  burst  out  in  the 
wonderful  "Priestly"  literature  of  Nehemiah's 
time — 450  B.C.   and  thereafter.     Our  hope,   in 


4  Old  Testament  Criticism 

these  pages,  is  to  do  some  small  justice  to  those 
and  other  similar  matters  which  are  so  sorely 
and  so  often  neglected,  even  by  not  a  few  liberal- 
ly-minded teachers  and  preachers  in  all  circles 
about  us. 

3.  But  what  caused  the  neglect  on  the  part 
of  Diestel  and  by  the  body  of  theologians  whom 
he  well  represents?  The  plain  fact  is  that,  with 
the  development  of  Christianity,  there  arose 
a  sharp  antithesis  in  the  ranks  of  those  who 
should  have  joined  hands  for  all  good  work — 
viz.,  between  the  Christians  and  the  Jews;  and 
in  that  antithesis  the  Christian  thinker,  on  the 
one  hand,  threw  away  the  singularly  free  liter- 
ary spirit  which  his  Jewish  ancestors  had 
possessed,  and  which  had  very  largely  made 
Christianity  and  enabled  it  to  emerge;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  Jewish  scholars  stiffened 
themselves  back  from  the  rich  legacy  of  critical 
freedom  which  their  fathers  had  left  to  them, 
and  put  on  many  of  the  very  bonds  which  their 
opponents  in  Christian  circles  accused  them 
untruly  of  always  wearing. 

Other  evils  have  resulted  which  are  still 
more  to  be  regretted;  for  the  common  neglect 
to  realise  the  literary  freedom  of  the  forma- 
tive days  of  Hebrew  literature  has  created  the 
dream  among  ordinary  persons  in  general  that 
the  whole  Old  Testament  was  written  on  one 
plan,  and  on  one  literary,  moral,  and  theological 


Of  Our  Ideal,  and  Our  Plan  5 

level.  The  astounding  wortlilessness  of  such  a 
fancy  is  not  the  worst  of  it.  Two  classes  of 
readers  have  suffered  sadly  in  consequence.  On 
one  side,  the  would-be  friends  and  devoted  users 
of  the  Bible  as  a  book  of  devotion  have  been 
puzzled  and  pained  by  an  apparent  cruelty 
encouraged  by  God  in  Old  Testament  times, 
although  a  study  of  the  criticism  that  had  gone 
on  throughout  the  ages  would  have  taught  them 
that  the  encouragement  was  merely  apparent. 
On  the  other  side,  there  have  been  sometimes 
in  the  past  centuries  of  our  era  men  at  enmity 
for  various  reasons  with  Christian  institutions; 
and  these  have  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  God 
represented  by  Jesus  those  cruelties  that  we 
have  just  mentioned,  unaware  all  the  time  how 
a  study  of  criticism  would  have  shown  them 
their  historical  mistake.  It  is  very  trvie  that 
the  neglect  of  study  of  criticism  and  of  its 
history  has  caused  much  dishonour  to  the 
venerable  Hebrew  literature — a  literature  quite 
as  noble  as  any  other:  the  lovers  of  the  Bible 
have  been  brought  into  sore  straits  by  that 
neglect,  and  the  Bible  has  been  mistakenly 
blamed  for  huge  real  evils  that  were  wrought  bv 
entirely  different  influences.  Therefore,  let  us 
avoid  a  plan  that  has  been  fruitful  of  such  mis- 
takes, and  let  us  set  out  in  our  examination  of 
the  whole  course  of  Old  Testament  Criticism, 
not  from  the  year  a.d.  i,  but  from  the  earliest 


6  Old   Testament  Criticism 

known  date  of  the  literature  itself.  We  can 
promise  the  reader  a  rich  and  happy  result. 

4.  But  now  another  important  question 
presses  in  upon  us — namely,  Can  we  really  and 
honestly  use  the  term  "criticism"  to  describe 
at  all  accurately  the  treatment  of  their  literature 
by  those  far-away  Hebrews  of  900  B.C.  and 
onwards  ?    The  reply  is  doubly  in  the  afhrmative. 

What  is  it,  let  us  ask  in  the  first  place,  that  we 
propose  to  study  under  the  term  "criticism"? 
That  word  of  Greek  parentage  is  the  same  as 
the  term  "judgment,"  its  synonym  of  Latin 
descent.  Therefore,  if  we  find  the  so-called 
"lahwistic"  writers  of  900  B.C.  using  their 
judgment  in  culling  from  earlier  sources  what- 
soever they  would  use  for  their  newer  purposes, 
who  shall  say  that  they  were  not  exercising 
criticism?  Again,  two  hundred  years  later, 
about  700  B.C.,  amid  a  great  movement  both 
material  and  mental,  another  set  of  Narrators 
known  to  us  as  "Elohists"  deliberately  set 
aside  the  older  narrative  and  substituted  in 
its  place  matter  that  was  essentially  different 
both  in  its  account  of  events,  and  in  its  ideas  of 
duty,  and  in  its  conception  of  the  nature  of  the 
national  Deity.  Surely  we  may  again  say  that 
this  was  a  very  serious  case  of  exercise  of  critic- 
ism. But  we  need  not  anticipate  here  any 
further  what  is  to  be  described  in  the  following 
pages.     We  are  going  to  see  how  some  literary 


Of  Our  Ideal,  and  Our  Plan  7 

men  among  the  Hebrews  in  those  far-away 
days  examined,  judged,  criticised,  rejected,  and 
altered  this  or  that  in  the  writings  that  lay 
before  them  as  inheritances  from  the  past. 
They  laid  aside  what  the}^  did  not  approve  of; 
they  replaced  the  rejected  material  by  what 
seemed  to  them  to  be  better;  they  made  large 
additions;  and  they  wrote  entirely  new  works, 
all  of  which  breathed  opinions  entirely  different 
from  those  of  their  predecessors  on  all  sorts  of 
topics.  Now,  such  criticism  must  be  examined 
carefully  by  the  historian. 

Does  the  question  still  arise  whether  this  was 
akin  to  what  we  practise  to-day  as  "criticism"? 
Here,  then,  comes  our  second  claim,  in  that  we 
say  we  do  use  the  term  justifiably;  we  say  that 
it  was  as  truly  criticism  as  were  all  the  clearly 
unscientific  procedures  that  went  on  during  the 
early  Christian  ages,  during  the  medieval  times, 
and  even  during  the  times  of  the  Reformation, 
and  for  many  a  day  after  it.  It  was  criticism 
like  that  which  went  on  until  a  century  ago — nay, 
which  continues  until  this  day  in  many  places. 

Even  the  rise  of  exact  method  in  all  science 
and  history — material,  mental,  and  literary — 
has  not  precluded  the  existence  of  a  very  primi- 
tive style  of  criticism:  the  scholar  rather  en- 
courages the  novice,  knowing  that  practice 
will  make  the  simple  man  perfect. 

But  let  us  look  back  for  an  illustration.    The 


8  Old    Testament  Criticism 

Elohists  of,  say,  700  B.C.  rejected  the  lahwistic 
narrative  of  900  B.C.,  its  teachings  concerning 
morals  and  reHgion ;  they  did  so  for  what  we  may 
call  subjective  reasons.  Here  was  a  religious 
bias  at  work,  and  it  would  vitiate  the  new 
Elohistic  ("E")  record.  Quite  true;  and  was 
it  not  from  an  exactly  similar  bias  that  many 
an  early  Christian  student,  many  a  medieval 
writer,  many  a  reformer,  set  down  his  critical 
views?  We  have  learned  now  not  to  let  sub- 
jective preference  influence  our  decisions;  but 
this  method  is  of  comparatively  recent  date, 
and  is  not  universal  even  yet. 

Another  word  must  be  said.  What  was  the 
imdercurrent  that  moved  those  old  Elohists 
of  700  B.C.  to  reject  this  and  to  accept  that  in 
the  writings  of  900  B.C. — what  save  their  deep 
sense  that  their  action  was  right  and  was  best? 
But  go  farther  and  ask:  Is  it  anything  more  than 
a  sense  of  strict  duty  that  holds  the  hand  and 
guides  the  judgment  of  the  scientific  critic 
of  to-day?  Indeed,  we  must  agree  that  the 
sense  of  duty  is  always  the  highest  control  that 
any  man  feels  and  knows.  This  has  always  been 
so ;  in  the  voice  of  his  conscience  the  workman 
of  any  sort  hears  really  his  Deity's  command. 
So  it  has  been  in  all  the  past,  in  the  far-away 
ages,  and  in  the  nearer;  and  so  it  is  to-day. 
Here  is  an  essential  oneness  between  the  early 
Hebrew  literary  men  and  the  faulty  critics  of 


Of  Our  Ideal,  and  Our  Plan  9 

the  pre-scicntific  centuries  of  ovir  era  and  the 
properly  scientific  criticism  of  to-day. 

We  may  add  that  we  are  thus  reaching  the 
kernel  of  things  which  any  history  has  to  exhibit 
— namely,  the  undercurrent  of  plan;  or,  it  may 
be,  of  course,  the  want  of  plan — that  runs  all 
through  the  long  ages  of  man's  existence.  On 
the  presumed  basis  of  such  plan  all  the  business 
of  men  in  the  world  is  done.  All  busy  and 
thoughtful  men  have  confidence  that  there  is 
such  a  protective  management  of  all  affairs, 
public  and  private.  This  trust  that  all  work-a- 
day  persons  have  is,  of  course,  a  "faith";  and 
all  men  do  act  on  this  "faith"  in  that  which 
rules  the  universe.  In  another  well-known 
phrase,  "they  trust  God." 

5.  Now  we  can  see  why  we  need  to  study 
this  history  of  Old  Testament  criticism.  Let 
us  note  here,  therefore,  the  rationale  of  the 
present  volume:  it  is  that  since  the  Christian 
idea  of  the  character  of  Jesus  is  strictly  analo- 
gous to  this  business-like  faith  on  which  all  men 
act  in  their  callings,  therefore  very  naturally 
may  we  look  into  the  literature  that  enswathes 
the  story  of  Jesus  to  see  whether  or  not  the 
history  of  it,  and  of  men's  handling  of  it,  does 
or  does  not  exhibit  the  same  undercurrent  of 
causal  management  as  trustworthy^  Our  chief 
question  and  interest  must  be  this:  "Does  the 
history    of    Old    Testament    criticism    exhibit 


lo  Old    Testament  Criticism 

always  the  character  of  God  as  just  like  Jesus?" 
If  it  does,  then  our  search  will  contribute  to 
calm  strength  in  human  hearts  and  lives  and 
society. 

2.    The  Plan  of  Our  Work 

The  starting-point  is  now  defined,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  demands  of  facts.  The  method 
of  treating  the  successive  stages  of  the  story 
must  vary;  and  we  may  indicate  here  very 
briefly  the  chief  points. 

1.  It  will  be  wise  first  to  examine  very  care- 
fully what  sort  of  criticism  was  practised  by 
the  real  owners,  writers,  readers,  and  early 
transmitters  of  the  literature.  And  this  can  be 
done  best  by  systematic  illustration  of  the 
treatment  that  was  accorded,  in  each  generation 
that  was  at  all  active,  to  the  literature  that 
had  been  received  from  former  generations. 
For  this  reason  we  must  give  a  good  deal  of 
thought  and  of  space  to  critical  handlings — 
rejections,  editings,  substitutions,  and  additions 
— as  they  were  carried  on  by  the  properly  so- 
called  Hebrew  literary  men,  both  before  and 
after  the  Exile  or  Destruction  of  the  Hebrew 
nation;  and  we  promise  that  this  story  will  be 
found  to  be  more  than  important — it  is  startling ! 

2.  At  the  entry  of  Greek  and  other  foreign 
influence,  it  will  be  enough  to  watch  whether 


Of  Our  Ideal,  and  Our  Plan  n 

there  came  in  any  change  of  the  attitude  and 
the  mode  of  treatment  hitherto  f  oho  wed.  And 
here,  too,  we  shall  verily  be  startled:  the  usual 
traditional  fancies  concerning  unalterableness 
of  Scripture  are  so  unreal  that  it  is  time  they 
were  left  for  a  vision  of  the  beautiful  facts. 
But  we  shall  not  need  to  linger  long  over  this 
part  of  our  task. 

3.  The  study  and  estimate  of  the  attitude 
that  was  maintained  by  Jesus  has  by  no  means 
been  completed.  But  of  recent  years  the  de- 
voted, and  tender,  and  brilliant  work  of  Philip 
Schmiedel  has  let  the  whole  world  see  the  magni- 
ficent outlines,  deep  and  high,  grand  in  breadth 
and  length,  of  the  structure  of  the  Life  of  Jesus 
that  is  being  built,  tested,  and  approved  fear- 
lessly and  absolutely  by  the  finest  and  most 
thorough  criticism.  The  work  done  by  Schmie- 
del and  the  like  shows  that  even  already  we 
may  venture  to  indicate  the  attitude  of  Jesus 
towards  the  literature  of  earlier  generations, 
with  much  confidence  that  our  exhibition  is 
fairly  correct.  Of  necessity  we  shall  at  this 
point  seek  to  watch,  and  to  describe  also,  the 
methods  of  his  first  followers. 

4.  The  earlier  ecclesiastical  tendency  amid 
Christians  has  some  fine  features.  Indeed,  the 
work  of  such  men  as  Origen  and  Lucian  is  on  a 
level  with  the  finest  in  any  age;  but  we  can 
speed  rapidly  over  the  first  Christian  ages,  until 


12  Old   Testament  Criticism 

the  tremendous  awakening  under  Islamic  touch 
stirred  the  dry  bones  to  a  new  quickening. 

5.  In  the  exhibition  of  the  parallel  practice 
and  mind  of  Jewish  students  down  to  the 
Renaissance  we  may  have  to  step  along  as 
children ;  yet  we  can  hold  the  hands  of  admirable 
leaders. 

6.  The  new  thoughtfulness  in  the  Renais- 
sance cared  less  for  literary  criticism,  and  more 
for  certain  other  features  of  life — as,  indeed, 
it  had  to  do;  but,  in  the  later  stages  of  that 
awakening  which  came  with  Luther,  the  story 
of  the  Reformers'  attitude  towards  the  Old 
Testament  is  again  startling. 

7.  Then  a  mingling  of  Judaism  with  Christ- 
ianity in  vSpinoza  made  that  noble  soul  the 
pioneer  of  all  that  has  been  truly  done  ever  since. 
If  these  pages  might  turn  the  eyes  of  some  to 
Baruch  Spinoza's  great  epoch-making  Tract, 
and  might  exalt  that  little  essay  into  use  as  a 
text-book  for  to-day,  then  a  supremely  good 
result  would  have  been  obtained. 

8.  It  is  when  we  reach  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century  that  the  immense  work  of 
scientific  men  upon  the  ancient  literature  begins ; 
and  then  it  rolls  forward  with  tremendous  force, 
startling  the  dreams  of  dead  souls,  who  clutched 
the  great  Book,  and  withheld  it  from  living  men 
and  their  needs.  The  Old  Testament  is  free 
from  that  clutching  now — even  more  free  than 


Of  Our  Ideai,  and  Our  Plan  13 

is  the  New  Testament;  and  yet  the  dreamers 
are  slow  in  stirring  from  their  torpor.  May 
the  tale  of  the  marvellous  discoveries,  disclosing 
old  and  long-lost  treasiires,  fomid  during  the 
past  thirt}^  years,  help  on  the  wonderful  awak- 
ening. To  record  the  story  of  the  last  century's 
study  and  criticism  might  well  demand  a  volume 
for  itself. 


Chapter  II 

How  the  Hebrews  Criticised  Their 
Own  Literature 

I .     Criticism  in  the  First  Narrative  Litera- 
ture, 900-800  B.C. 

WE  are  about  to  consider  now  the  separate 
constituent  sources  from  which  our 
present  Pentateuch — or,  rather,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment narrative  books  as  a  whole — have  been 
put  together ;  and  here  we  shall  watch  the  process 
of  criticism  to  which  each  earlier  writer's  work 
was  submitted  by  the  next  following.  By-and- 
bye  we  shall  have  to  see,  further,  how  all  these 
were  set  into  the  combined  whole  as  it  has  been 
in  men's  hands  now  for  some  2000  years. 

We  must  take  some  results  of  recent  study 
for  granted;  yet  we  do  not  pre-suppose  much 
if  we  say  that  a  lahwistic  narrative  of  the 
Hebrew  monarchy  and  its  rise  was  written 
somewhere    about    900    b.c.^     That    lahwistic 

^  lahwistic  is  that  narrative  which  begins  in   Gen. 
ii.  4b,  and  runs  on,  cropping  up  ever  and  anon,  through 
14. 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature    15 

story  itself  ha.d  involved  really  much  criticism 
of  earlier  records,  traditions,  and  writings;  for 
there  are  in  the  lahwist  man}^  indications  of 
busy  collection  and  repetition  of  other  and 
earlier  men's  statements.  There  is  evidence 
also  that  interesting  additions  to  the  lahwistic 
record  were  made  by  "lahwistic"  hands  that 
worked  later  than  what  we  may  call  the  "great 
lahwist."  Additions,  and  what  some  call 
interpolations,  were  put  in  for  various  purposes 
— either  to  give  a  little  geographical  information 
as  in  Genesis  ii.  10-14;  or  to  embody  a  new 
religious  theory,  as  in  the  added  story  of  Cain 
and  Abel.  But  to  follow  out  all,  or  even  a 
good  few,  of  these  would  take  far  too  much  of 
our  possible  space,  and,  although  it  would  be 
very  interesting,  we  have  to  forbear.  A  still 
more  serious  process  demands  attention,  and  it 
will  illustrate  the  custom  that  prevailed,  identi- 
cally the  same,  in  all  cases. 

First,  then,  we  have  to  look  at  the  singular 
change  that  w^as  made  when  this  lahwistic 
record  of  900  B.C.  was  calmly  laid  aside  about 
700  B.C.,  when  the  Elohists  wrote  and  pub- 
lished an  almost  entirely  different  description 
of  the  early  history  of  the  people.     That  step 


all  the  books  from  Genesis  to  Kings,  save  Ruth.  It 
calls  the  Hebrew  God  by  the  name  "lahweh"  from 
the  first,  and  it  has  many  other  characteristics. 


i6  Old    Testament  Criticism 

has  influenced  all  the  ages  ever  since  in  a 
remarkable  way. 

I .  We  must  observe  at  the  outset  the  causes 
and  the  nature  of  the  change.  They  were 
somewhat  thus : — 

The  little  nation  of  the  Hebrews  came  into 
fearful  straits  about  750  B.C.,  through  the  mili- 
tary movements  of  the  two  great  rivals  for 
world-supremacy.  These  were  the  Assyrians, 
from  the  far  north-east  of  Palestine,  and  the 
Egyptians,  from  the  south-west.  Then,  as 
the  prophet  or  preacher  Amos  describes  the 
crisis,  the.  farmers  or  merchants  v/ould  go  out 
to  their  work  or  their  journeys  by  the  hundred, 
and  would  return  by  a  ten!  Now,  just  in  that 
hour  of  trouble  Amos  the  prophet  and  his  com^- 
rades,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  Micah,  sprang  to  the 
task  of  cheering  and  guiding  the  suffering  folk. 
The  counsel  that  they  gave  to  the  sufferers  is 
of  great  interest  to  us  now  for  several  reasons. 

(i.)  In  the  first  place,  this  counsel  was,  of 
course,  what  is  commonly  called  the  "providen- 
tial" outcome  of  the  various  lines  of  creative 
and  evolutionary  operation  that  had  been  going 
on  for  ages  previously,  and  that  culminated 
then.  Hebrew  critical  handling  of  their  own 
literature  resulted  from  a  preaching  adapted  to 
the  times  and  circumstances  of  the  people,  and 
it  v/as  a  preaching  of  help  or  deliverance. 

(ii.)     But    let    us   look   more    narrowly,  and 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     17 

we  shall  detect  at  once  a  remarkable  fact — the 
preaching  was  that  deliverance  would  come  if 
the  people  would  undergo  a  great  moral  change. 
The  earliest  of  the  preachers,  Amos,  the  Herds- 
man of  Tekoa  in  southern  Judah,  preached: 
"Seek  your  God,  lahweh;  for  he  being  Life- 
giver  is  naturally  the  proper  one  to  help  you 
now ;  and  if  you  are  in  any  doubt  as  to  where  to 
find  him,  Seek  Good,  and  then  lahweh  will  be 
'with  you,'  as  you  say."  Now  the  inward 
point  of  this  counsel  was  that  hitherto  their 
way  of  conduct  had  been  altogether  narrow, 
and  by  its  limitations  was  fatal.  Hebrew  life 
and  religion  had  been  what  we  may  call  "Tri- 
balism"— /.  e.,  the  principle  had  been  followed 
that  all  action  and  thought  must  be  for  the 
interests  of  the  tribe,  with  little  or  no  regard 
for  the  life  and  joy  of  any  individual  man  or 
woman  when  such  life  lay  across  the  interests 
of  the  tribe  and  of  all  that  the  tribe  connoted. 
But  now,  said  this  preacher,  "Give  up  that 
tribal  rule  of  life,  and  seek  Good."  That  is  to 
say,  this  man's  gospel  was  that  a  joyful  or 
satisfactory  life  would  come  to  such  as  adopted 
a  higher  morality. 

(iii.)  But,  again,  it  can  be  fearlessly  asserted 
that  this  action  of  certain  teachers  meant  also 
a  like  revolution  in  at  least  a  regnant  portion 
of  all  the  people  themselves,  for  the  preaching 
of   these   prophets  was   so   prized  that  it   was 


i8  Old  Testament  Criticism 

preserved.  We  have  also  to  note  that  until 
this  time  no  such  honour  had  been  done  to  any 
prophet  as  was  done  to  Amos,  no  such  treatment 
and  preservation  of  any  previous  prophet's 
sayings  had  occurred.  The  revolution  which 
those  prophets  wrought  was  wide-spread;  and 
the  new  ideas  of  morality  were  accepted  freely. 
2.  As  for  the  contents  of  the  new  morality, 
we  can  sum  it  all  up  thus:  life,  chastity,  individ- 
ual possessions,  and  in  general  justice  between 
man  and  man,  and  from  man  towards  woman, 
with  due  reverence  for  all  honourable  persons 
and  things,  were  now  exalted  as  never  before. 
We  shall  notice  presently  some  illustrations  of 
this.  But  now  we  have  to  add  that  this  was  a 
preaching  of  a  new  theology,  as  well  as  of  a  new 
morality;  for  the  very  essence  of  the  old  tribal 
morality  was  that  it  was  practised  by  the  tribal 
Deity  himself,  and  was  enjoyed  by  him,  as 
well  as  by  the  human  members  of  the  tribe, 
lahweh  shared  in  all  their  ways;  he  himself 
stood  on  the  old  moral  level,  which  was  now 
condemned  by  Amos,  and  which  miist  be  aban- 
doned. Therefore,  Amos  was  preaching  an 
entirely  new  idea  of  God;  the  prophet  was  in- 
troducing a  new  lahweh  when  he  introduced  a 
new  morality.  Note  well  that  the  earlier  leaders 
had  worshipped  a  lahweh,  and  Amos  worshipped 
a  lahweh  too;  but  Amos  would  have  said: 
"Ah,  yes,  only  my  lahweh  is  not  the  same  as 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     19 

the  old  lahwch:  the  true  lahwch  was  not  known 
before.  Herein  my  ideal  is  a  revelation  of  the 
real  lahweh." 

3.  Now  we  can  appreciate  the  critical  result 
that  speedily  followed.  A  new  story,  a  new 
record,  a  new  Bible  was  constructed;  or,  as  we 
arc  becoming  accustomed  to  say,  the  Elohistic 
narrative  ("E")  of  the  past,  of  the  forefathers, 
of  the  Exodus,  of  the  conquest  of  Palestine, 
and  of  the  Davidic  monarchy,  was  written  and 
published  as  the  real  story;  while  the  old 
lahwistic  narrative  was  virtually  condemned 
and  displaced  as  wrong. 

Of  course,  this  statement  implies  a  good  deal; 
for  example,  it  is  natural  to  ask  whether  the 
two  narratives  are  really  very  different,  and 
what  is  characteristic  in  the  differences.  So 
one  turns  to  a  few  illustrations: — 

(i.)  Consider,  then,  the  several  pictures  or 
conceptions  of  Abraham  given  in  the  two 
stories;  and,  as  we  consider,  let  us  observe  that 
the  difference  is  in  their  moral  levels.  Thus, 
in  "J,"  which  we  may  set  to  stand  for  the 
lahwist,  Abraham,  that  first  great  traditional 
ancestor  of  the  Hebrews,  is  described  naivtly 
as  turning  out  of  his  home  the  mother  of  his 
yet  unborn  son  Ishmael.  Hagar,  his  natural 
wife,  is  pictured  as  outcast,  alone  in  the  desert, 
awaiting  the  birth  there  of  the  child  of  that 
man  who  was  held  by  the  writer  of  the  story 


20  Old  Testament  Criticism 

to  be  the  honourable  head  of  the  Hebrew  tribe. 
But  turn  to  the  Elohistic  story  of  AbraJiam. 
Here  the  bondwoman  Hagar  is  described  as  in- 
deed expelled,  but  not  until  her  boy  is  quite  a 
lad  and  able  to  learn  something  of  the  occupa- 
tions of  the  desert.  So  the  criticism  of  "E,"  as 
we  may  call  the  Elohistic  narrative,  was  ready 
to  alter  the  older  records  of  the  past  when  the 
morality  of  the  old  story  was  beneath  the  level 
of  what  "  E  "  counted  due  regard  for  the  woman 
Hagar.  This  is  but  one  of  many  illustrations 
of  the  early  Hebrew  Old  Testament  criticism. 
And  we  can  see  that  it  was  not  merely  a  literary 
question,  but  was  most  earnestly  a  question  of 
right  or  wrong. 

(ii.)  Another  illustration  will  show  the  in- 
wardness of  the  old  criticism  exactly.  On  the 
famous  mountain  in  the  desert  where  lahweh 
was  believed  to  dwell  the  leader  Moses  is  said 
by  "J"  to  have  received  a  document,  in  stone, 
containing  fundamental  rules  for  the  government 
of  his  people;  but  in  that  lahwistic  document 
aU  these  rules  concern  ceremonial  worship. 
We  turn  to  the  Elohistic  narrative;  and  there 
we  are  told  that  the  document  received  on  the 
mountain-top  was  a  series  of  moral  injunctions: 
it  was,  in  a  word,  that  famous  code  which  we 
know  as  the  "Ten  Commandments,"  or  the 
Decalogue.  At  all  events,  says  "E,"  this  was 
Vv^iat  Moses  received  at  first;  although,  indeed, 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     21 

he  flung  the  Tablets  down  the  mountainside 
and  destroyed  them,  in  indignation  with  his 
people  for  their  bull- worship.  He  received, 
says  "E,"  another  set  instead  of  this  broken 
set ;  and  the  second  set  was  certainly  a  ceremon- 
ial code.  Now  those  supposed  original  "Ten 
Commandments"  of  the  "E"  story,  the  broken 
and  lost  set,  prove  on  examination  to  have  been 
exactly  equivalent  to  the  moral  demands  m.ade 
upon  the  nation  by  Amos  and  his  comrades. 
Here,  then,  is  a  most  important  illustration  of 
the  early  Old  Testament  criticism:  it  rejected 
as  incorrect  the  record  of  the  earlier  writers 
who  had  said  that  the  Hebrew  Deity  had  given 
through  Moses,  on  Sinai,  a  law  that  was  chiefly 
taken  up  with  ceremonial  rules.  The  critics 
claimed  that  lahweh  gave  first  the  tables  con- 
taining moral  law;  and  only  when  these  were 
broken  did  he  give  the  mere  ceremonial  rules, 
(iii.)  But  the  Elohistic  writers  went  still  fur- 
ther in  their  criticism,  and  in  their  rejection  of 
the  records  and  the  theories  of  their  lahwistic 
predecessors.  Those  lahwists  had  taught  be- 
fore 800  B.C.  a  certain  view  of  the  nature  of 
the  God  lahweh  and  of  his  ways,  of  his  mind 
and  his  methods ;  and  they  had  taught  that  this 
view  of  theirs  had  always  been  known  and  held ; 
but  the  Elohists  in  700  B.C.  reject  that  lahwistic 
conception  of  God  entirely,  and  teach  another 
view  altogether.     And,  what  is  more,  they  do  it 


22  Old  Testament  Criticism 

of  quite  set  purpose.  For  the  reader  of  the 
Elohist  record,  as  it  has  been  made  accessible 
of  late  years,  sees  that  all  through  the  "E" 
story  of  the  patriarchs — i.e.,  all  through  Genesis, 
— no  matter  whether  these  men  are  pictured  as 
good  or  bad,  no  one  of  them  ever  mentions  the 
name  "lahweh."  Constantly  and  consistently 
throughout  the  book  of  Genesis  we  read  that 
' '  Elohim ' ' — not  lahweh — did  this  and  that ,  or 
said  thus  and  thus.  lahweh  never  appears  in  the 
Elohistic  parts  of  Genesis.  The  term  "Elohim " 
means  simply  "Elo'hs" — i.e.,  deities,  or  out- 
reaching  powers  or  influences  in  genera,!.  The 
inner  character  of  these  powers  no  man  knew; 
or,  as  the  Hebrews  would  say  in  their  language, 
men  knew  there  were  "powers,  "  but  the  " name " 
or  character  of  any  one  of  these  deities  was  not 
known.  Abraham  knew,  says  the  "E"  writer, 
that  there  were  such  powers;  and  he  honoured 
them  by  feasts,  and  they,  on  their  part,  en- 
trusted certain  affairs  to  his  charge;  but  he 
had  no  idea  at  all  that  any  one  of  them  had  the 
character  that  is  signified  by  the  name '  *  lahweh . ' ' 
According  to  the  new  Elohistic  theory,  Abraham 
knew  no  one  of  those  gods  at  all.  But  long 
after  Abraham — 400  years  after  him,  says 
"E" — those  powers,  or  that  complex  of  deities, 
summoned  Moses  to  the  great  task  of  leading 
the  Hebrews  out  from  Egypt  and  away  safely 
to  the  lands  of  Palestine;  and  then  the  chosen 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     23 

loader,  Moses,  amid  anxiety  concerning  his 
task  and  his  fitness  for  it,  ventured  to  pray: 
"Oh,  Elohim,  who  is  it  among  the  deities  that 
is  commanding  me?  Whom  shall  I  name  to 
my  people  as  their  Commanding  Deliverer  and 
Friend?"  And  now  there  came  to  the  timid 
yet  finely  brave  man  this  oracle  from  the  Unseen : 
"Yes,  indeed,  they  know  Me  not;  and  all  their 
Fathers  have  been  unaware  Who  I  am.  But 
go  thou  tell  them  that  *  I  am  going  to  be  What 
I  am  going  to  be.'"^  So  Moses  went;  and 
thenceforward  the  name  "lahweh"  is  used  by 
these  "E"  narrators — not  always,  indeed,  but 
chiefly — as  the  token  of  the  character  of  this 
their  covenanting,  and  ever-helping,  and  ever 
more  and  more  self-revealing  Elo'h.  We  may 
say  that  the  "  E  "  writers  have  a  distinctly  new 
theology-proper,  if  by  this  expression  we  may 
indicate  the  view  they  take  of  the  nature  and 
ways  of  the  Deity.  Such,  then,  was  the  criti- 
cism of  these  Elohistic  narrators,  the  comrades 
of  Amos  and  Isaiah.  They  made  fearless 
rejections  and  alterations,  all  being  made  for 
the  profoundest  moral  and  spiritual  reasons. 

And  all  along  they  take  the  consequences 
of  this  view;  all  along  they  avoid  the  old  lah- 
wistic  fancy  that  the  gods  could  or  would  come 
among  men,  to  walk  and  talk  with  them,  to  sit 
at  the  tent- door  with  them,  and  to  eat  of  their 

^See  Exodus  iii. 


24  Old  Testament  Criticism 

spread  tables.  The  gods  of  these  Elohistic 
narrators  are  never  seen.  They  dweU  in  secret 
in  the  heavens  far  above,  far  away  from  men; 
they  communicate  with  men  in  visions  and 
dreams  of  the  night;  and  then  the  beholding 
man  may  see  a  ladder  let  down  to  earth,  whose 
top  reaches  into  the  heavenly  abode  of  the  Elo- 
him,  and  whereon  there  descend  and  ascend 
messengers  who  bear  oracles  and  prayers.  There 
are,  indeed,  say  the  Elohists,  some  specially 
and  graciously  gifted  persons  of  insight,  inspired 
for  the  gift  of  further  entirely  new  sets  of  con- 
ceptions concerning  duty  and  concerning  God 
and  men,  and  even  concerning  history.  All 
such  could  be  given  through  prophets  raised  up 
and  inspired  for  the  purpose.  Criticism  was 
in  very  deed  provided  for:  God  arranged  for  it, 
say  these  ''E"  writers! 

4.  We  are  not  bound  here  to  discuss  n.i- 
nutely  the  historic  correctness,  or  otherwise,  of 
the  statements  of  these  "  E  "  narrators  as  against 
those  of  their  "J"  forerunners;  the  fact  is, 
however,  that  on  investigation  the  student  of 
the  two  sorts  of  story  finds  himself  bound  in 
most  particulars  to  award  the  verdict  in  favour 
of  the  lahwists  as  the  more  reliable.  These 
"J"  men  lived  nearer  to  the  events;  moreover, 
they  were  not  led  by  a  theological  bias.  The 
"E"  writers  were  so  led.  At  the  same  time 
we  must  note  that  the   "E"  writers  show  us 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     25 

clearly  the  historical  facts  concerning  themselves 
and  they  reveal  their  own  ideas  and  their  bias; 
they  show  us  also,  may  we  not  say,  the  ethical 
and  religious  ideas  of  the  whole  body  of  people 
who  were  influenced  by  the  great  revolution 
that  the  prophets  brought  about.  Now  we 
may  throw  all  this  into  brief  summary  form, 
and  say  that  in  "E"  we  can  see  the  critical 
attitude  towards  their  scriptures  which  was 
held  by  the  best  men  of  those  days ;  and  it  was 
an  attitude  of  absolutely  perfect  freedom.  Let 
us,  then,  cast  the  result  into  a  proposition  con- 
cerning the  history  of  criticism  thus:  A  great 
body  of  men  discarded  the  cruel  tribal  religion 
of  the  days  previous  to  Amos,  and  rose  to  the 
moral  height  where  they  could  conceive  the 
Ten  Commandments  and  declare  them  to  be 
the  ideal  moral  standard — and  no  mean  standard 
it  was,  as  most  will  agree;  and  these  noble  seers 
of  a  better  morality  felt  themselves  entirely 
free  from  any  sense  of  a  duty  to  submit  their 
life,  ideas,  opinions,  or  practice  to  the  control  of 
the  scriptures  that  had  been  written  in  the 
earlier  times.  They  deliberately  set  aside  the 
older  oracles,  and  substituted  a  contradictory 
series. 

Such,  then,  was  the  first  stage  in  Hebrew 
literary  criticism.  We  may  say  here  at  once 
that  we  shall  see  the  same  attitude  preserved 
throughout  many  generations  of  Hebrew  and 


26  Old  Testament  Criticism 

Jewish  life.  We  proceed  to  a  brief  description 
of  the  critical  work  of  the  age  that  followed 
immediately  after  those  Elohists. 

2. — Of  Early  Hebrew  Criticism  of  Ethical 
Writings 

The  successors  of  the  Elohists  are  commonly 
called  the  "Dcuteronomists"  ("D"),  and  they 
must  have  done  their  work  in  the  years  from 
about  700  to  620  B.C.  The  criticism  which  was 
carried  on  by  the  "D"  men  concerns  chiefly 
ethical  and  ceremonial  regulations,  as  a  reading 
of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  will  show. 

I.  A  few  words  of  preliminary  explanation 
will  aid  us  in  grasping  the  position  in  history 
of  this  Deuteronomic  hterature. 

(i.)  The  name  implies,  of  course,  that  it  is 
to  be  seen  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy;  but 
we  should  add  that  there  are  not  a  few  additions, 
or  commenting  notes,  to  be  found  in  other  parts 
of  the  narrative  books  from  Genesis  to  Kings 
which  are  very  clearly  traceable  to  the  hands, 
or,  at  any  rate,  to  the  spirit,  of  the  Deuterono- 
mists.  The  nature  or  spirit  of  these  men  may 
be  described  simply  thus: — 

(ii.)  When  the  great  Elohistic  change  in 
the  ideas  of  past  history  and  of  moral  obliga- 
tion had  been  accomplished  by  the  preaching 
of  the  prophets,  micn  could  not  at  once  sit  down 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     27 

contented  with  the  attainment  gained  under 
the  first  wave  of  influence  and  impulse;  it  was 
certain  that  there  would  be  a  tendency  to  medi- 
tate still  further  on  duty,  and  also  on  the  true 
nature  of  religion.  It  is  also  certain  that  the 
difficulty  of  displacing  old  customs  would  prove 
all  the  greater  according  as  the  area  of  the  re- 
formatory efforts  was  more  and  more  widely 
extended.  There  was  sure  to  be  a  reaction, 
and  in  some  sense  a  discontent,  and  even  a 
disintegration,  that  would  soon  turn,  on  the 
one  hand,  into  a  hatred  of  the  new  ideas,  and 
that  on  the  other  hand  would,  no  doubt,  pro- 
duce a  more  earnest  effort  to  extend  and  to 
perfect  the  great  changes. 

(iii.)  These  results  did  come  about.  There 
was  reaction,  led  by  the  able  King  Manasseh; 
and  the  lahwistic  story  was  in  a  measure  restored 
to  importance.  On  the  other  hand,  the  enthu- 
siasts for  reform  went  much  farther  than  the 
"E"  writers  had  desired;  quietly  and  in  hidden 
circles  they  enlarged  the  moral  demands.  But 
their  chief  work  lay  in  propounding  a  grand 
theory  of  unification  of  all  the  theological  ideas 
and  all  the  cercm.onial  and  political  interests 
of  the  nation,  by  means  of  a  singular  project 
for  centralisation  of  worship.  To  this  end  they 
wrote  Deuteronomy,  or  the  Deuteronomic 
writings ;  for  there  are  quite  a  number  of  different 
writings,  the  work  of  different  men,  combined 


28  Old  Testament  Criticism 

in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy — and  all  pervaded 
by  the  same  purposes.  All  unite  in  proclaiming 
(a)  the  unity  of  the  Hebrew  God  lahweh.  The 
differences  of  the  views  men  had  as  to  what  his 
ways  and  wishes  were  must  all  be  overcome; 
for,  said  these  "D"  teachers,  there  is  only  one 
lahweh.  And  (b)  this  was  to  be  accomplished 
by  having  only  one  sanctuary  for  lahweh  in 
all  the  land.  Then  (c)  they  claimed  that  many 
other  regulations  would  have  to  be  established, 
to  the  end  that  the  unification  and  the  true 
moral  ordering  of  all  things  in  the  land  might 
be  accomplished.  The  Deuteronomists  believed 
that  a  great  political  unity  would  result,  and 
that,  with  it,  strength  would  be  obtained  to  face 
the  terrible  enemies  from  the  north  and  south. 
2.  Now  the  remarkable  fact  bearing  on  our 
historical  understanding  of  the  literary  criticism 
of  those  days  is  that  these  *'  D  "  men  set  aside  de- 
liberately the  directions  and  descriptions  which 
even  the  "  E  "  men,  their  immediate  predecessors 
and  leaders,  had  uttered  as  the  very  oracles  of 
God!  One  illustration  is  striking  and  sufficient: 
in  Exodus  xx.  the  "  E  "  document  says  distinctly 
that  "an  altar  may  be  erected  at  every  place 
where  there  has  been  a  theophany,  or  self-mani- 
festation, of  lahweh.  "  But  in  Deuteronomy  xii. 
it  is  laid  down  as  a  fundamental  rule — a  rule 
written  in  different  forms  by  several  different 
persons — that    "they   must   take   heed   not   to 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     29 

build  an  altar  in  every  place,  b\it  only  in  one 
place — to  wit,  in  the  one  place  which  lahweh 
their  God  may  choose  from  among  all  their 
various  centres  of  habitation.  There  shall  they 
build  the  one  and  only  place  for  altar-worship, 
and  thither  shall  all  worshippers  repair  to  per- 
form their  offices  of  worship."  Of  cotirse,  the 
serious  consequences  of  this  plan — for  it  was 
adopted  by  the  king  Josiah  and  the  nation  in 
620  B.C. — were  many  and  great,  and  they  last 
even  to  our  own  time;  but  our  present  concern 
is  with  the  implied  handling  of  ''Scripture" 
by  this  "D"  school.  Clearly,  those  Deuterono- 
mic  men,  who  were  eager,  like  the  "E"  men,  to 
carry  out  the  great  moral  reformation  initiated 
by  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  their  fellows,  paid 
no  submission  or  regard  at  all  to  those  elders' 
writings  as  authoritative.  They  contradicted 
even  the  directions  of  the  Elohists,  who  had  been 
their  own  teachers! 

3.  There  is  another  literary  feature  in  the 
"D"  age  to  be  observed,  and  it  is  of  no  little 
importance.  In  Professor  Driver's  masterly 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament^  it  is  held  and 
demonstrated  with  fullest  evidence  that  this 
"D"  is  based,  in  the  literary  sense,  upon  what 
Driver  calls  "JE."  This  implies  a  strange 
fact — viz.,  that  when  the  "D"  men  wrote,  the 
old  lahwistic  narrative  had  not  after  all  been 

^  For  title,  etc.,  in  full,  see  Bibliography. 


30  Old  Testament  Criticism 

wholly  discarded  in  favour  of  the  new  "E" 
story!  Rather,  there  had  asserted  itself  a 
desire  to  preserve  both  narratives.  After  a 
fashion  that  has  always  been  common  among 
Semitic  literary  people;  some  one  had  made  a 
combined  narrative  out  of  *' J"  and  ''E,"  weav- 
ing and  interweaving  them  together  for  purposes 
of  preservation.  The  combination,  which  we 
call  "JE,"  is  not,  indeed,  a  comfort  for  the 
ordinary  reader,  for  he  is  apt  to  be  sadly  con- 
fused by  the  intertwining  of  the  double  records, 
say,  concerning  Abraham.  But  here  is  a  striking 
feature  of  the  literary  ways  of  those  days;  and 
be  it  noted  that  this  was  the  method  which  was 
followed  not  by  barbarians,  but  by  the  moral 
reformers  of  700  B.C.  These  critics,  who  com- 
bined and  altered,  were  the  comrades  of  Amos 
and  Hosea  and  Isaiah — i.e.,  they  were  the  men 
to  whom  we  owe  our  Ten  Commandments,  that 
worthily  honoured  compendium  of  duty.  Thus 
again,  in  this  second  period,  and  on  a  field  where 
literature  concerned  itself  with  morals,  the 
history  of  Old  Testament  critici.sm  is  that  the 
men  of  noblest  faith  and  inspiration  and  of 
morally  creative  power  were  full  of  absolute 
freedom.  Writers  of  such  a  quality  altered  the 
Scriptures  which  they  had  received  from  the 
Fathers;  and  each  fresh  generation  felt  per- 
fectly free  to  alter  the  whole  again. 

We   have   thus   learned  how  the   traditional 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     31 

dream  that  the  Hebrews  looked  on  their  Scrip- 
tures as  far  above  all  alteration  is  a  purely 
unhistorical  fancy. 

4.  Ere  we  leave  this  age  and  its  methods, 
we  ought  to  add  a  few  words  concerning  a 
process  that  affected  Deuteronomy,  and  the 
other  "D"  literature,  not  in  their  relation  to 
the  Elohistic  narrative  which  preceded  and 
occasioned  it,  but  in  the  internal  structure  and 
relationships  of  ''D's"  various  parts  and  ele- 
ments. For  we  can  examine  the  relations  to 
one  another  of  a  whole  school  of  Deuteronomic 
thinkers  on  this  matter  of  centralisation  and 
sacrifice.  Various  men  spoke  out  their  ideas; 
and  the  book  we  call  Deuteronomy  is  a  combi- 
nation of  many  of  these  ideas  and  utterances 
all  welded  together  into  the  one  document.  It 
is  admitted  by  scholarly  investigators  that 
Deuteronomy  grew  out  of  older  documents  and 
codes  to  a  large  extent,  and  that  these  were 
used  with  remarkable  freedom  of  adaptation, 
rejection,  combination,  and  addition  for  the 
purposes  aimed  at  by  the  compilers.  It  is 
admitted  also  very  generally  that  in  Deutero- 
nomy the  ordinarily  careful  analyst  can  see  at 
least  two  main  documents,  two  statements  of 
the  principle  that  altar-worship  must  be  central- 
ised at  one  place.  Let  any  simple  reader  com- 
pare together  the  various  verses  of  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  the  book,  and  what  we  have  said  will 


32  Old  Testament  Criticism 

seem  somewhat  clear  to  him.  Furthermore,  ar.y 
lay  reader  of  the  English  text  can  distinguish 
with  little  difficulty  certain  layers  of  growth  that 
have  taken  place  from  time  to  time  by  the 
addition  of  successive  introductions  and  appen- 
dices to  the  earlier  forms  of  the  work.  Here, 
again,  we  have  clearly  to  recognise  a  critical 
activity  of  no  mean  or  careless  sort,  and  one 
that  had  a  very  defmite  purpose  in  the  political, 
ceremonial,  and  ethical  order  of  the  little  Hebrew 
state.  The  men  who  combined  and  re-edited 
through  the  years  from  700  to  600  B.C.  practised 
a  criticism  of  a  fine,  fateful,  and  fearless  sort. 
5.  Ere  we  pass  from  these  two  periods  already 
considered,  two  questions  may  be  troubling 
the  reader.  In  the  first  place,  some  one  is  sure 
to  be  wondering  how  we  can  know  those  various 
documents,  and  how  we  can  speak  of  them  with 
any  such  assurance  as  we  have  used.  In  reply 
we  have  to  point  to  the  careful  analytical  work 
done  by  Hebrew  scholars  during  the  past  half- 
century.  So  thoroughly  has  this  analysis  been 
accomplished  that  now  all  the  various  introduc- 
tions to  the  Old  Testament,  written  even  by 
conservatively-minded  scholars,  are  full  of  the 
analytical  results;  all  great  scholarly  works  are 
built  thereupon;  and,  notably,  there  are  now 
scarcely  any  points  in  the  whole  matter  where 
scholars  disagree.  Already  published  is  t;  ^ 
whole  lahwistic  narrative,  restored  to  its  origii.L 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     33 

unbroken  form,   the  form  in  which  the  people 
of  Amos's  time  knew  it;  and  in  like  manner  the 


By  kind perinissitDi. 

Julius    Wellhausen 

Dr.  Theol.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament  Theology,  Gottingen. 


whole  of  the  Elohist's  story  has  been  set  together 
and  published,     hxvy  one  may  consult  for  himself 


34  Old  Testament  Criticism 

these  documents  in  reliable  detail  and  fulness. 
Indeed,  the  study  of  the  process  of  analysis  and 
of  its  results  is  becoming  a  favourite  task  among 
younger  learners  of  Old  Testament  science. 

Again,  when  any  one  is  unwittingly  tempted, 
at  sight  of  the  critical  methods  of  these  Elohistic 
narrators,  to  say  "Is  not  this  forgery?"  or 
perhaps  to  use  some  stronger  words,  then  we 
beg  such  a  light-hearted  accuser  to  read  the 
history  of  those  Elohistic  men.  That  history 
has,  indeed,  been  all  unknown  until  within  the 
past  forty  years;  but,  unknown  so  long  and 
hidden  as  they  were,  those  men  were  great  moral 
heroes.  They  did  more  than  invent  the  Deca- 
logue; they  laid  a  deep,  noble,  wonderful  founda- 
tion for  the  grandest  sort  of  literary  study  and 
criticism,  inasmuch  as  they  were  entirely  regard- 
less of  any  traditional  sacredness  of  the  religious 
literature  that  had  been  written  by  their  fathers. 
They  demanded  not  submission  to  writings,  but 
to  the  sense  of  manly  duty ;  and  they  exhibit  in 
their  work  a  true  creative  power. 

3.     Of    Early    Hebrew    Criticism    of    the 
Prophets'  Writings 

Similar  critical  work  has  affected  the  writings 
of  the  very  prophets  themselves,  in  the  critics' 
rejection  of  old  religious  records  of  prophetic 
oracles,  and  in  alteration  of  them  and  addition 


By  kind  permission. 

The  Rev.  Canon  T.  K.  Cheyne 

D.Litt,,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament  Interpretation,  Oxford. 

35 


36  Old  Testament  Criticism 

to  them.  The  students  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  our  days  have  laid  their  hands  on  all  the 
literature,  and  by  no  means  on  the  narrative 
writings  only,  and  they  have  discovered  what 
we  have  now  to  show.  We  look  at  the  book 
bearing  the  name  of  "Isaiah,"  the  most  brilliant 
of  those  prophets;  and  we  no  sooner  open  it  than 
we  find  ourselves  driven  to  do  much  severe 
critical  work ;  and  that  b}^  reason  of  the  remark- 
able freedom  which  the  critics  of  Isaiah's  own 
time,  or  soon  after,  felt  quite  free  to  exercise. 
A  very  few  striking  examples  will  suffice  to  show 
the  state  of  affairs. 

I.  A  notable  illustration  of  old  Hebrew 
critical  handling  of  Isaiah's  utterances  meets  the 
reader  on  the  opening  page  of  the  book.  It  may 
be  of  little  moment  whether  the  first  chapter  has 
any  particular  right  to  stand  where  it  does;  but 
any  thoughtful  man  becomes  speedily  anxious 
to  know  why  chapter  vi.  is  not  first.  Why  does 
not  that  story  of  the  prophets'  call  stand  at  the 
very  beginning  of  all  that  he  is  said  to  have  com.- 
posed  or  spoken?  Does  not  that  passage  tell  of 
the  earliest  hours,  and  scenes,  and  experiences 
of  the  lad  Isaiah,  who  was  to  be  almost  the 
greatest  of  all  Hebrews?  There  was  evidently 
some  deep  critical  reason  for  so  peculiar  an  order 
of  the  utterances  and  narratives  which  set  the 
story  of  his  "call"  as  chapter  vi.  in  the  book. 
The  best  one  can  say  is  that  it  lay  probably  in 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     37 

the  different  views  held  at  different  times  con- 
cerning the  fitness  of  the  various  utterances  of 
the  man  to  accomplish  the  moral  change  which 
was  always  the  prophet's  main  concern.  Pos- 
sibly Isaiah  was  himself  the  critic  who  altered 
the  order  and  made  the  non-chronological  ar- 
rangement; but  the  changes  are  almost  too 
drastic  for  that  theory.  Doubtless,  other  men 
undertook  to  re-write  or  to  re-arrange,  in  the 
prophet's  name.  Here,  then,  is  again  an  illus- 
tration of  Hebrew  freedom  of  criticism  of  oracles 
during  those  normative  generations. 

2.  But  now,  passing  over  many  a  problem 
that  frets  the  student  to-day,  let  us  read  the  fifth 
chapter,  so  filled  with  Isaiah's  best  coinage  of 
both  phrase  and  thought;  here  are  remnants  of 
what  once  was  some  of  his  most  striking  poetry. 
In  the  first  half-dozen  verses  comes  his  exquisite 
''Song  of  the  Vineyard";  but  even  this  has  not 
reached  us  untouched  by  the  hands  of  the 
altering  editors.  For  example,  the  second  verse 
runs  thus,  as  most  students  translate  it: 

He  digged  it  and  cleared  it  of  stones. 

But  one  is  struck  immediately  by  the  strange 
procedure  of  clearing  a  vineyard  of  stones.  A 
stony  soil  is  usually  counted,  say,  in  the  Rhine 
regions  or  in  the  valley  of  the  Adige,  to  be  a 
necessary  medium  for  the  long-reaching  roots  of 


38  Old  Testament  Criticism 

the  grape-vines,  that  they  mav  stretch  out  and 
down  to  the  hidden  moisture,  far  out  of  reach  of 
the  hot,  semi-tropical  sun.  The  word  ''stones" 
seems  Hke  an  interloper.  Moreover,  there  is 
just  one  metrical  ''foot"  too  many  in  the  verse; 
surely  a  word  has  been  added  since  Isaiah  sang 
the  song.  So  we  examine  the  Hebrew  text ;  and 
speedily  we  see  that  the  word  translated  "He 
digged  it"  is  a  very  old  and  most  unusual  word, 
occurring  only  this  once  in  the  Old  Testament; 
it  was  evidently  unfamiliar  and  quite  unknown 
to  some  man  who  happened  to  be  making  the 
manuscript  copy  from  which  our  particular  text 
is  taken.  So  he  set  beside  it  a  word  which  he 
guessed  might  be  an  explanation  of  the  diffi- 
culty; then  the  next  copyist  copied  both  words 
as  if  they  had  been  there  from  the  first — both 
written  by  Isaiah!  That  was  the  way  of  the 
criticism — shall  we  call  it? — of  those  days,  per- 
haps not  very  long  after  Isaiah  lived. 

3.  But  when  we  read  on  further  in  this  same 
chapter,  we  see  at  once  how  careless  often  was 
the  handling  of  the  prophet's  writings.  Next 
after  the  fine  "Song  of  the  Vineyard"  stands  the 
"Seven-fold  Woe."  Let  the  reader  consult 
either  Cheyne's  Polychrome  edition,  or  the  great 
work  by  Duhm,  of  Basel,  or  the  admirable  new 
Commentary  by  Mr.  Box,^  and  it  will  be  seen 

1  For  detailed  information  concerning  these  and  other 
books  the  Bibliography  may  be  consulted. 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     39 

that  the  stanzas  of  this  splendid  poem  have 
been  preserved  in  fragments  only.  Mr.  Box 
says:  "This  powerful  allocution  to  the  upper 
classes  in  Judah  has  apparently  suffered  not  in- 
considerably in  parts  of  its  text.  One  of  the 
sections  consists  of  only  one  line  (v.  21);  but 
symmetrical  arrangement  is  clearly  traceable 
throughout."  Before  we  draw  a  conclusion  con- 
cerning the  criticism  of  the  times  that  is  re- 
sponsible for  this  defaceinent  let  us  look  a  little 
further. 

4.  All  students  have  seen  how  Ewald  dis- 
covered the  remarkable  fact  that  the  last  few 
verses  (25-30)  of  this  fifth  chapter  belong  to  the 
terrible  **Song  of  the  Outstretched  Arm,"  while 
the  other  extant  parts  of  the  Song  have  been 
displaced,  and  stand  in  chapter  ix.,  8  to  chapter 
x.,  4.  In  this  case  very  little  of  the  vSong  has 
been  lost:  the  stanzas  are  nearly  complete,  as 
both  the  metre  and  the  sense  will  show.  But 
how  could  the  wonderful  bit  of  poetry,  perhaps 
almost  the  most  powerful  that  Isaiah  composed, 
be  torn  asunder  thus,  and  bits  of  it  set  in  different 
places  in  the  collection?  Did  perhaps  the  leaf 
that  contained  the  one  fragment  belong  to  one 
person,  while  the  other  leaves  of  the  roll  con- 
taining the  rest  of  the  Song  belonged  to  some  one 
else?  Or  did  some  person  think  tl.^at  the  few 
words  in  chapter  v.  would  fitly  close  the  list  of 
the  awful  "Seven  Woes";  and  did  he,  therefore, 


40  Old  Testament  Criticism 

tear  it  off  its  proper  piece  of  parchment  and 
leave  the  rest  to  be  picked  up  at  another  time, 
and  placed  in  a  different  collection  of  the  pro- 
phet's words?  In  any  case,  we  can  now  tell  what 
was  the  nature  of  the  critical  method  of  those 
days;  from  which,  let  us  note,  might  have  easily 
resulted  the  loss  of  these  great  oracles  instead 
of  their  transmission  in  such  confusion  to  us. 
The  literary  men  of  one  generation  handled  the 
Scripture  of  the  previous  generations  with  per- 
fect freedom.  x\nd  it  is  to  be  added  that,  of 
course,  the  illustrations  just  given  are  by  no 
means  singular;  they  follow  the  customary  ways 
of  the  literary  and  religious  men  of  those  days, 
just  after  the  great  Isaiah  lived. 

5.  If  we  pause  a  moment  to  ask  again  the 
question  whether  the  methods  thus  followed  can 
be  properly  called  criticism,  the  answer  must  be, 
Certainly,  yes.  Early  Hebrew  criticism  laid  no 
practical  stress  at  all  on  the  words  of  the^  pro- 
phets of  the  past ;  and  least  of  all  did  they  regard 
any  such  words  as  infallible  guides  for  men  busy 
in  the  affairs  of  life.  They  did  subordinate  their 
handlhig  of  writings  to  a  rule;  but  that  rule  was 
the  inner  utterance  of  the  "practical  reason,"  as 
Kant  would  call  it. 

It  is  unnecessary  now  to  illustrate  the  like 
treatment  that  was  accorded  by  Hebrew  critics 
to  the  writings,  or  the  records  of  the  sayings,  of 
an  Amos  and  a  Hosca,  and  other  men  as  f'reat. 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     41 

4.     Of    Hebrew    Criticism    in    the    Exile, 
UNDER  the  Influence  of  Babylon 

The  literature  produced  by  the  Hebrews  under 
their  taskmasters  on  the  plains  of  the  Euphrates 
and  Tigris  was  in  some  senses  the  most  brilliant 
that  the  little  people  ever  wrote. 

1.  It  was  then  that  Ezekiel  felt  the  inspira- 
tion of  his  new  and  strange  environment,  and 
wrote  in  the  third  section  of  his  book  that  plan 
for  a  new  Israelite  nation  which  threw  to  the 
winds  the  plans  of  Deuteronomy.  Students  of 
the  Bible  in  recent  years  have  seen  how  Deutero- 
nomy had  provided  that  all  Levites  should  be 
priests ;  but  the  priest  Ezekiel  flatly  opposed  this 
Deuteronomic  principle,  and  demanded  that 
only  the  Zadokites  among  the  Levites  should 
hold  the  priestly  office.  This  was  textual  critic- 
ism in  a  very  real  sense,  since  it  denied  all 
dominant  authority  of  the  Deuteronomic  book 
and  of  its  writers,  and  even  of  its  royal  patron, 
the  King  Josiah.  Ezekiel  denied  even  the  au- 
thority of  the  whole  Hebrew  nation,  who  with  the 
King  had  proclaimed  Deuteronomy  to  be  the 
new  Royal  and  National  Charter  for  State  and 
Worship. 

2.  In  the  same  exilic  time,  from  600  B.C.  on- 
wards, the  little  "Holiness  Book"  so-called, 
contained  in  Leviticus,  cc.  xvii.-xxvi.,  was  com- 
piled as  a  scheme  for  a  worthier  life  than  that 


42  Old  Testament  Criticism 

which  the  exiled  people  had  practised  in  Judah 
before  their  fall.  Now  that  little  code  was 
made  up  out  of  at  least  two  earlier  codes  of  rules, 
as  any  one  may  see  who  will  compare  the  two 
chapters  xviii.  and  xx.,  two  parallel  but  singu- 
larly dissimilar  sets  of  rules  for  nearly  the  same 
matters.  That  was  a  result  of  critical  pro- 
cedure; shall  we  not  say  that  those  earlier  and 
now  quite  lost  codes  were  surely  as  much  part 
of  the  sacred  materials  of  the  Bible  as  are  any 
passages  or  books  that  we  can  read  now  in  the 
Old  Testament ;  and  yet  the  men  of  those  times 
in  Babylon  deliberately  exercised  their  critical 
rights,  and  threw  away  those  older  codes, 
counting  it  enough  to  keep  the  fragments  that 
we  see  in  those  chapters  of  Leviticus.  The 
facts  concerning  the  minute  analysis  of  Leviti- 
cus, cc.  xvii.-xxvi.,  and  the  interrelations  and 
parallelisms  between  part  and  part,  can  be  seen 
fully  expounded  in  the  two  new  great  Bi-ble 
Dictionaries.^ 

3.  The  greatest  work  in  all  that  exilic  Hebrew 
literature,  and,  indeed,  one  of  the  greatest  works 
in  all  literature,  composed,  strange  to  say,  in  the 
years  when  the  people  were  in  bitter  slavery  on 
the  far-away  plains  of  Babylon,  was  the  poem 
beginning  in  Isaiah  xL: 

Comfort  ye,   comfort    ye  my    people,   hath    said   your 
God. 

1  See  Bibliography. 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature      43 

The  poem  runs  on  to  the  end  of  chapter  Iv.  cf 
that  book;  but  it  inckides  in  its  present  form 
certain  remarkable  passages  inserted  at  four 
different  points  by  a  hand  quite  different  from 
the  writer  of  the  main  poem,  as  all  scholars 
incline  to  agree.  A  word  will  illustrate  the 
difference,  and  will  help  to  a  clear  grasp  of  the 
critical  attitude  held  by  the  ablest  and  best  He- 
brews of  those  exilic  days  towards  the  literature 
of  any  preceding  pen  or  time.  The  main  poemi 
is  an  impassioned  effort  to  incite  and  inspire  the 
slaves  to  make  claim  to  freedom.  It  cries  out 
to  them  with  entreaty  and  command,  summon- 
ing them  to  march  away  out  into  the  terrible 
desert,  and  so  in  the  end  to  reach  the  old  home- 
land of  Judah,  the  old  farms  and  treasures  there, 
the  dear  dwellings  and  the  Zion  sanctuary  for 
which  their  hearts  yearned.  The  poein  m.ust 
have  been  written  about  the  year  560  B.C.,  when 
the  Medo-Persian  conqueror  Cyrus  was  march- 
ing across  the  upper  Tigris  to  master  all  the  West. 
The  writer  evidently  expects  that  Cyrus  will  de- 
scend on  the  more  southerly  Babylonian  regions, 
and  will  take  possession  of  all  the  lands,  the  cities, 
the  wealth,  and  the  empire  which  the  waning 
Babylonian  government  seemed  unable  to  hold 
much  longer.  Of  course,  in  such  a  juncture  the 
Hebrews  who  had  still  any  strong  patriotism 
caught  at  the  hope  that  they  might  be  set  free 
to  go  back  to  the  beloved  old  land.     So,  with  an 


44  Old  Testament  Criticism 

impassioned  declaration  by  the  singer  that  his 
thought  and  hope  are  really  of  God's  own  breath- 
ing, he  bids  all  his  fellows  awake  and  rise  to  the 
opportunity.  Some  of  the  passages  he  utters 
are  certainly  unsurpassed  for  beauty  and  pathos 
— e.g.,  chapter  xli.,  17-20,  where  he  anticipates 
the  terrors  of  a  march  across  the  desert,  and 
chants : 

When  the  poor  and  needy  seek  water,  and  there  is  none, 

When  their  tongue  faileth  them  for  thirst, 

I,  lahweh,  will  answer  them; 

I,  the  God  of  Israel,  will  not  forsake  them. 

I  will  open  rivers  on  the  high  places, 

And  fountains  in  the  midst  of  the  valleys; 

I  will  set  in  the  wilderness  brimming  pools, 

I  will  make  the  parched  land  springs  of  water. 

I  will  set  in  the  wilderness  the  cedar. 

The  acacia,  the  myrtle,— 

So  swells  and  rolls  the  splendid  afflatus  and  the 
power  of  this  man ;  and  we  do  well  to  appreciate 
the  quality  of  his  utterance,  so  that  we  may  the 
better  value,  on  the  one  hand,  the  strength  of 
literary  men  of  the  time,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
also  the  entire  lack  of  hesitation  they  had  in 
those  days  in  criticising  such  a  poet's  work  and 
setting  it  aside  if  need  seemed  to  be.  Now,  it  is 
well  to  remember  that  a  writing  of  such  a  sort 
as  this  "Comfort"  poem  was  dangerous;  he  who 
wrote,  and  also  those  who  read  or  listened,  were 
liable  to  be  charged  with  treason.     No  wonder, 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     45 

then,  that  the  writer  finds  his  task  a  hard  one, 
and  finds  himself  driven,  as  he  thinks,  to  cry  out 
in  reproach  and  indignation  against  the  people 
who  will  not  rise  at  his  charming.  Ere  long  he 
calls  them  "deaf  and  blind,"  and  uses  many  a 
similar  angry  term.  He  seems  to  grow  dis- 
heartened, as  he  writes  and  sings,  pressing  his 
argument  and  his  plan.  True  he  is  too  wise  to 
end  his  great  sermon-poem  with  a  wail  of  disap- 
pointment, yet  such  is  never  very  far  from  his 
voice  all  through  his  sixteen  chapters,  xl.-lv. 

Now  comes  the  remarkable  literary  fact  that 
in  the  pages  of  this  very  work  we  find  clear  evi- 
dence that  some  other  man  wrote  about  the 
same  time,  or  a  little  later,  concerning  the  same 
matter,  but  in  quite  a  different  tone.  For  this 
other  writer's  verses  are  interpolated  and  im- 
bedded in  the  text  of  the  "Comfort  ye"  poem, 
in  cc.  xlii.,  xlix.,  1.,  liii.  They  can  easily  be 
dissected  out  of  the  whole  work.  They  are  not 
only  of  quite  another  spirit,  and  that,  indeed, 
in  many  senses,  but  they  are  couched  in  quite  a 
different  literary  form.  They  are  lyrics  of  an- 
other sort,  and  of  a  metre  entirely  different 
from  that  of  the  main  poem.  They  use,  indeed, 
a  very  regular  metre,  and  the  whole  four  of  them 
are  in  exactly  the  same  metre.  Clearly,  to  the 
eye  of  the  reader  of  the  original,  they  have  been 
inserted  into  the  main  poem  as  it  was  left  by  the 
first  composer.     They  are  four  in  number;  we 


46  Old  Testament  Criticism 

would  describe  them,  for  it  is  important  that  an 
EngHsh  reader  should  be  able  to  check  the  matter 
for  himself,  but  space  forbids. 

Now,  it  is  the  sequel  that  we  have  to  do  with. 
Some  one  inserted  these  four  songs  of  self-devo- 
tion to  the  world's  good  into  the  larger  poem 
which  had  so  limited  an  outlook,  and  which 
wished  so  eagerly  to  return  to  the  old  forms  and 
to  the  lost  treasures,  desiring  these  material 
good  things.  That  is  to  say,  there  came  soon, 
even  among  those  slaves,  a  time  when  literary 
criticism  fearlessly  condemned  the  earlier  and 
more  selfish  poem  as  unworthy  of  the  nation. 
Then  men  deliberately  expressed  that  condemna- 
tion by  inserting  the  far  nobler  utterances  into 
the  ''Comfort  ye"  poem  just  at  the  very  points 
where  that  elder  poem  was  most  insistent  on  the 
narrower  ideal.  So  those  four  inserted  lyrics 
that  we  have  named  declare  most  plainly,  by 
their  very  position,  that  the  critical  insertors 
condemned  the  ''Comfort"  or  "Return"  poem, 
and  actually  called  attention  to  it  as  beneath  the 
true  level.  So  did  the  best  men  handle  Scripture 
in  those  days. 

Quite  clearly  these  editors  had  not  a  vestige 
of  the  fancy  that  the  writer  of  "Comfort  ye,  my 
people"  was  a  man  so  sacred,  or  that  he  uttered 
words  so  sacred,  that  later  generations  might 
not  flatly  deny  his  doctrine  and  contradict  his 
opinion  of  what  God's  mind  is.     Such  freedom 


Hebrews  Criticised  Own  Literature     47 

of  opinion  existed  in  the  generations  of  the 
centuries  600  to  400  B.C.  The  writer  of  the 
fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  exercised  criticism 
with  such  freedom. 

4.  We  might  now  illustrate  the  same  freedom 
of  judgment  and  criticism  in  handling  literature, 
by  looking  into  the  composite  nature  of  the 
book  or  collection  of  writings  called  "Job";  for 
in  it  there  are  woven  together  remarkably 
several  elements,  some  of  which  contradict  each 
other  in  startling  ways,  even  on  the  important 
question  of  why  God  lets  good  men  suffer. 
The  interweaving  of  these  various  elements  in 
Job  is  due  probably  to  the  very  age  which  saw 
the  editing  of  Isaiah  xl.  ff.,  which  we  have  just 
been  considering.  There  was  certainly  a  very 
free  hand  allowed  then.  But  we  have  not  space 
for  setting  out  all  the  details  of  this  criticism 
manifest  in  the  great  ''Job"  collection  of  litera- 
ture, but  must  pass  on  to  the  early  Jewish  ages 
from,  say,  500  B.C.  onwards. 


Chapter  III 

Of  Criticism  among  the  Jews 

I. — Under  Persian  Rule,  500-300  b.c. 

(I.)  How  did  the  early  Jews  handle  their  so- 
called  ''Mosaic"  Torah  or  Doctrine? 

I .  We  shall  take  it  for  granted  that  the  read- 
ing world  is  now  fairly  well  aware  how  Genesis, 
Exodus,  and  the  other  narrative  books  have  been 
made  into  their  present  form  by  the  interweaving 
of  three  distinct  narratives  and  two  codes  of 
laws;  also  that  in  Gen,  i.  we  have  the  beginning 
of  one  of  these  three  narratives,  which  is  now 
commonly  known  among  students  as  the 
"Priestly"  narrative  ("P"),  because  it  ex- 
pounds at  great  length,  in  Exodus  xxv.  ff.,  the 
priestly  system  of  worship,  which  has  a  high 
priest,  priests,  and  Levites;  and,  further,  that 
this  Priestly  book  was  brought  from  Babylon  to 
Jerusalem  in  or  about  the  year  450  B.C.,  in 
charge  of  Nehemiah,  who  was  sent  from  the 
royal  Persian  court  at  Shush  an,  east  of  Babylon, 
by  the  Persian  Emperor,  to  render  any  possible 
assistance  to  the  little  Jewish  province  in  Judea. 
48 


Of  Criticism  among  the  Jews  49 

All    this    has   been    fully  expounded    by  many 
teachers. 

2.  Perhaps,  however,  not  so  many  are  aware 
that  in  this  Priestly  doeument,  as  we  are  able  to 
read  it,  thanks  to  the  service  done  by  the  care- 
fully analysing  Hebraists,  we  can  see  clear  evi- 
dence that  those  who  composed  that  document 
were  not  all  of  one  mind;  they  had,  indeed, 
strikingly  different  opinions.  It  is  a  most  re- 
markable fact  that  many  different  shades  of 
opinion  were  collected  together  and  preserved 
in  the  document  as  we  have  it,  and  may  easily 
be  recognised.  Let  us  try  to  illustrate  this  fact 
briefly. 

The  restored  document  has  been  printed  in 
full,  so  far  as  it  is  contained  in  the  Pentateuch, 
especially  by  Bacon,  in  his  Genesis  of  Genesis  and 
his  Triple  Tradition  of  the  Exodus}  Examina- 
tion will  show  that  from  chap.  xxv.  onward 
nearly  the  whole  of  Exodus  belongs  to  this 
Priestly  document,  which  we  call  ''P"  for  con- 
venience. These  chapters  are  the  real  kernel 
or  burden  of  the  Priestly  document.  They  set 
forth  the  "P"  writers'  theory  of  true  religion; 
and  it  is  to  be  {a)  communion  between  the  God 
lahweh  and  his  people;  {h)  in  trysted  meetings; 
ic)  beside  a  certain  casket;  wherein  {d)  records 
of  his  revelations  are  to  be  kept;  and  at  which 
meetings    {e)   ever  fresh  revelations  are  to   be 

'  See  Bibliography. 
4 


50  Old  Testament  Criticism 

given  to  his  folk.  The  passage  sets  forth  also 
how  (0,  as  the  "P"  writers  believe,  fit  worship 
is  to  be  rendered  to  Tahweh  only  at  and  around 
this  casket.  Now,  if  we  follow  the  contents  of 
these  chapters  from  the  xxvth  on  to  the  end  of 
chapter  xxix.,  we  shall  hardly  fail  to  feel  that 
at  the  end  of  chapter  xxix.  the  wTiter  completes 
his  plan  for  the  proper  sanctuary;  he  sets,  as  it 
were,  the  "finis"  sign  at  the  close  of  the  great 
matter  that  he  has  in  hand,  binding  all  together, 
and  excluding  apparently  anything  else,  by 
solemn  subscriptionary  formulas.  His  words 
are  in  summary  these:  "Thus  and  thus,  as  has 
now  been  described,  shall  the  sanctuary  be  con- 
structed and  furnished.  Then  I,  lahweh,  will 
enter  and  make  my  abode  as  my  trysting-place 
with  you,  and  from  my  seat  upon  the  sacred 
casket,  covered  by  the  precious  tray  of  gold 
with  my  own  token  of  possession  laid  daily 
upon  it — namely,  touched  by  my  'broad 
arrow,'  which  is  a  spot  of  blood — there  abiding 
always  I  will  utter  ever  new  words  of  guidance 
for  my  people."  The  reader  of  the  passage 
feels  that  here  he  has  now  heard  all  that  the 
author  of  "P"  believed  to  be  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed order  for  the  sanctuary  and  its  w^orship. 
Note,  then,  that  this  plan  of  "P"  has  included 
and  described — first  (a)  the  all-important  casket ; 
and  (b)  the  tent  to  contain  it,  this  being  divided 
into  two  halls  by  a  curtain,  the  casket  being  in 


By  kind  pcruiission 

Benjamin  Wisner  Bacon,  D.D. 

Professor  of  New  Testament  Theology.  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  U.S.A. 

51 


5-^  Old  Testament  Criticism 

the  inner  hall ;  and,  further  in  the  outer  hall 
stand  two  things:  (r)  a  table,  whereon  bread  is 
to  be  placed  for  the  use  of  the  ever-present 
Deity;  and  likewise  in  this  outer  hall  is  (d)  a 
lamp-bearing  candelabrum,  needed,  of  course, 
since  there  were  no  v/indows  and  no  other  pro- 
vision for  light.  These  things,  then,  were  all 
the  furniture  that  was  to  be  within.  Without, 
in  an  including  compound  or  cotu't,  was  to  be 
(e)  the  one  altar,  or  place  for  slaying  the  sacri- 
ficial animals,  and  for  burning  the  offal  and 
other  portions  that  must  be  destroyed. 

Now,  on  reflection,  any  one  who  is  fairly  well 
aware  of  the  traditional  ideas  concerning  ''the 
tabernacle  in  the  wilderness"  will  say  that  we 
have  omitted  something  from  the  list  of  the 
furniture.  No  mention  at  all  has  been  made  of 
two  things,  an  altar  of  incense  and  a  laver  for 
ablutions,  which  are  commonly  supposed  to 
have  been  required  in  or  at  the  sanctuary.  It 
is  the  simple  fact  that  these  two  are  actually 
not  at  all  mentioned  in  the  list  of  matters  in 
chapters  xxv.  to  xxix.  They  were  not  thought 
necessary  in  the  first  draft  plan,  chapters  xxv.  to 
xxix. 

But  it  is  quite  as  startling  to  the  reader  who 
has  the  literary  habit  of  comparing  passage 
with  passage  to  find  that,  although  chapter 
xxix.  formed  the  close  of  the  draft  plan  for  the 
place  of  worship,  yet  chapter  xxx.  proceeds  to 


Of  Criticism  among  the  Jews  53 

add  more  contents.  And  now,  not  less  sur- 
prisingly, this  addition  contains  provision  for 
furnishing  just  those  two  things  previovisly  not 
named:  (a)  the  altar  of  incense;  and  (b)  the 
laver.  Must  we  not  draw  the  conclusion  that 
the  original  plan  in  chapters  xxv.  to  xxix.  was 
made  by  a  writer  who  had  no  thought  of  the 
need  of  these  two  added  things;  and  that  after- 
wards perhaps  this  same  man — or  was  it  some 
one  else — criticised  the  draft  and  believed  that 
the  plan  should  be  enlarged?  So  he  said  and 
wrote  that  the  two  additional  things — (a)  the 
incense  altar  and  (b)  the  great  bason — were 
necessary.  Nay,  more,  this  later  expanding 
hand  says  that  it  was  the  God  lahweh,  seated 
on  the  top  of  the  great  mountain  of  Sinai,  the 
Deity  of  the  Hebrews,  who  felt  that  he  had  not 
done  enough,  but  had  left  out,  or  even  forgotten, 
some  needed  furnishings;  and  so  now  he  must 
add  an  appendix,  to  make  the  plan  or  the  re- 
quired place  of  worship  properly  adequate. 
This  conception  of  the  methods  v\^hich  the  Deity 
would  follow  seems  singular  to  our  eyes;  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  shows  emphatically  that  a 
perfectly  free  criticism  of  sacred  documents  was 
practised,  as  well  as  a  perfectly  untrammelled 
liberty  of  addition  to  them,  even  when  the  Deity 
himself  was  regarded  as  the  original  author  and 
also  the  later  critic.  The  Deity  was  believed 
to   practise   such  la.ter   additions  as  something 


54  Old  Testament  Criticism 

indispensable;  he  himself  was  wont,  so  thought 
the  "P"  writers,  to  criticise  older  writings  and 
to  reject  them  as  insufficient,  and  then  to  enlarge 
them;  and  so  he  taught  his  people  to  write 
critical  amendments. 

3.  Let  us  linger  for  a  few  moments  longer 
over  this  interesting  bit  of  an  old  document  and 
its  amendments,  for  something  more  startling 
still  will  appear.  Read  on  in  chapter  xxx.  to 
the  sixth  verse,  in  which  the  place  is  prescribed 
where  the  added  Altar  for  Incense  shall  stand 
inside  the  sanctuary.  Even  in  che  ordinary 
Authorised  Version  that  is  read  in  our  pulpits, 
that  sixth  verse  may  be  seen  to  be  made  up  of 
two  sentences  which  are  nearly  identical.  The 
identity  is  striking  when  the  whole  is  read  in  the 
Hebrew  version.  Here  are  the  two  sentences. 
We  set  at  the  side  of  the  chief  word  in  each  case 
the  Hebrew  root  of  the  word,  which  consists,  as 
usual,  of  three  consonants;  and  we  can  see  that 
the  three  letters  are  the  same  in  each  case,  and 
only  their  order  is  different:  Exodus  xxx.,  6 — 
"And  thou  shalt  put  it 

(a)  "before  the  Paroketh  (root  P.R.K. 
—i.e.,  the  Veil)  which  is  upon  the  Casket 
of  the  Testimony; 

(b)  "before  the  Kapporeth  (root  K.P.R. 
— i.e.,  the  Atonement-place)  which  is  upon 
the  Testimony." 

Is  not   this   a   case  of  two   different  readin":s, 


Of  Criticism  among  the  Jews  55 

parallel,  and  even  equivalent,  save  in  the  fresh 
arrangement  of  the  three  letters  P.R.K.  ?  Surely 
this  means  two  conflicting  views!  Now  con- 
sider also  the  text  given  by  the  old  Greek  version, 
commonly  known  as  the  Septuagint,  and  we 
shall  find  that  here  only  the  first  of  the  two 
alternative  places  is  named — i.e.,  we  read  there 
(Exodus  XXX.,  6) :    "And  thou  shalt  put  it 

"before  the  Veil  that  is  upon  the  Casket 
of  the  Testimonies." 
Then  the  second  half  of  the  verse,  or  what  we 
expect  to  stand  as  the  second  half,  is  lacking. 

The  whole  condition  of  matters  makes  upon 
us  these  impressions: 

(i)  That  the  two  portions  (a)  and  (b)  in  the 
Hebrew  text  are  what  we  call  "doublets";  in 
other  words,  we  say  that  some  copyist,  when 
writing  out  his  MS.,  made  a  "  dittography  "  here, 
writing  down  the  same  sentence  twice  over. 
Did  he  write  the  second  bit  by  mistake,  or  had 
he  some  other  reason;  and,  perhaps,  even  a 
controversial  one? 

(ii)  When  we  reflect  still  more  closely,  we 
see  that  the  Greek  writer  of  the  Septuagint 
version  did  not  find  the  doublet  condition  in  the 
Hebrew  MS.  from  which  he  w^as  translating. 
His  Hebrew  MS.  had  only  the  first  of  the  two 
sentences  that  are  so  similar.  Now  we  know 
that  the  Hebrew  MS.  which  the  LXX.  version- 
maker  had  before  him  in  his  work  was  older  by 


56  Old  Testament  Criticism 

far  than  the  Hebrew  of  our  present  Bible's 
text. 

{Hi)  So  we  are  driven  to  concKide  that — 
(a)  In  the  very  first  plan  for  the  sanctuary,  as 
in  cc.  25-29,  there  was  no  provision  at  all  for  the 
secondary  Altar  for  Incense;  and  (b)  That  in 
the  appendix  next  added,  and  still  plainly  visible 
in  the  Greek  Exodus,  the  direction  was  to  make 
this  Altar,  but  to  set  it  outside  the  veil ;  and  (c) 
Then  some  one  else  said,  "No,  set  it  inside  the 
veil,  beside  the  Casket  or  Ark";  and  (d)  In  the 
perplexity  as  to  which  plan  was  right,  the  final 
writer  nam.ed  both  places.  Observe  the  method 
adopted  for  commending  this  new  theory;  it 
was  managed  by  altering  the  word  for  "veil" — 
i.e.,  Paroketh — and  transposing  its  letters  in  a 
sort  of  "Grimm's  Law"  fashion  to  make  it  read 
Kapporeth,  which  means  "place  of  atoning." 
This  was  a  piece  of  not  at  all  uncommon  Rab- 
binical fancy-work ;  but  it  was  more,  and,  indeed, 
a  good  deal  more. 

(iv)  This  fancy  of  the  criticising  and  altering 
Rabbis  had  a  serious  method  in  it ;  for  if  the  new 
theory  of  the  position  were  the  right  one,  then 
the  High  Priest,  who  had  to  burn  incense  on  this 
Incense  Altar  every  day,  had,  therefore,  to  enter 
within  the  Veil  every  day,  and  to  stand  every 
day  before  the  Seat  of  the  Deity,  an  act  which 
represented  the  Deity  as  far  more  accessible 
than  He  would  be  if  the  altar  were  without  the 


Of  Criticism  among  the  Jews  57 

Ycil,  and  if  the  priest  entered  within  only  once 
in  a  year.  So  the  Rabbi,  believing  in  this 
greater  aceessibihty,  mnst  have  said:  ''The  old 
writer  made  just  a  slight  error  in  the  order  of 
those  three  letters  P.R.K.;  they  ought  to  be  set 
K.P.R.;  for  our  God  loves  us  so  much  that  he 
will  be  approached  by  us  every  da}^"  The 
Rabbi's  little  bit  of  reasoning  was  perfectly 
natural — nay,  even  winsomely  fit. 

But  the  matter  grows  even  more  interesting 
when  we  notice  the  sequel,  and  ask  how  these 
alternative  doctrines  of  an  Incense  Altar  were 
received  by  the  general  public  of  the  times. 
Evidently  the  old  original  alternative  readings 
and  the  two  theories  of  the  position  of  the  Altar 
were  not  rejected;  all  were  left  standing  in  the 
new  copies  of  the  document,  else  we  should  never 
have  seen  it.  Jvist  as  fully  as  did  the  original,  so 
did  the  new  reading  and  theory  receive  a  place  in 
the  sacred  document.  So  we  have  the  singular 
fact  of  two  contradictory  readings  set  in  the  text 
one  after  the  other,  and  that  two  theories  of  the 
greater  or  less  accessibility  of  the  Deity  were 
both  regarded  as  orthodox  and  deserving  of  the 
revere -ICO  of  the  people  of  400  to  100  B.C. 

How  brightly  docs  all  this  exhibit  the  freedom 
of  men  in  those  formative  days  of  Judaism, 
their  freedom  to  think  concerning  God,  and 
their  freedom  to  criticise  the  older  docum.cnts 
and  to  write  dowm  two  directly  contradictory 


58  Old  Testament  Criticism 

critical  opinions  on  the  very  sacred  page  itself, 
and  in  the  very  lines  where  the  variation  and  the 
contradiction  could  not  escape  observation  and 
remark.  Verily,  the  customary  fancy  of  many 
among  us  and  among  our  forefathers  that  the 
text  of  those  Bible  documents  was  something 
far  too  sacred  to  be  altered  in  any  way  is  a 
fancy  altogether  mistaken,  and  altogether  dis- 
cordant with  the  ways  of  the  men  of  God  of 
early  Jewish  days,  the  days  of  the  actual  con- 
struction of  the  Bible.  We  find  that  what  is 
called  by  students  "the  Lower  Criticism" — i.e., 
criticism  of  individual  words  and  sentences — was 
practised  most  freely  in  those  normative  days. 
It  must  be  added  that  the  feature  of  Exodus 
XXX.  now  described  is  no  mere  fancy  of  the 
hunters  for  curiosities.  If  we  read  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  in  the  New  Testament,  at 
chapter  ix.,  we  shall  find  that  the  writer  of 
that  tractate  knew  of  the  difference  of  opinion 
concerning  the  place  prescribed  for  this  Incense 
Altar  in  Exodus  xxx.  6;  for  in  verses  3  and  4  he 
says  it  was  inside  the  Veil;^  whereas  in  verse  7 
he  implies  that  this  altar  was  outside  the  Veil, 
for  in  verse  7  he  says  the  High  Priest  went 
within  the  Veil  only  once  a  year.  Of  course,  if 
the  Altar  had  been  inside,  he  would  have  to  go 
in  every  day,  to  burn  the  daily  incense  upon  it. 

'  See  for  clearness  the  Revised  Version  and  its  mar- 
ginal reading,  or,  better  still,  see  the  Greek  of  Hebrews. 


Of  Criticism  among    the  Jews  59 

The  matter  was  one  of  deep  theological  signi- 
ficance, yet  those  old  Jewish  critics  had  no 
hesitation  in  exercising  this  perfect  critical 
freedom. 

(11.)  How  did  the  early  Jews  handle  the 
Pentateuch  as  a  whole?  We  might  now  claim 
that  we  have  given  sufficient  illustration  of 
special  criticism  within  the  limits  of  Torah  or 
Book  of  Mosaic  Doctrine  itself,  and  therewith 
adequate  proof  of  the  view  we  have  set  forth 
of  the  conduct  of  those  critics  of  500  to  300  B.C. 
But  for  the  general  user  of  the  Bible,  and  for 
not  a  few  quite  careful  readers,  it  will  be  well 
to  give  a  more  complete  insight  into  the  whole 
matter  of  this  document  commonly  called 
''The  Priestly  Document,  "  and  into  the  method 
of  insertion  of  "J"  and  "E"  into  it. 

1.  "P"  is  regarded  by  students  as  undoubt- 
edly that  "Book  of  Torah,  or  Teaching,  or 
Doctrine,"  which  was  brought  with  Nehcmiah 
from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem  in  450  B.C.  A  few 
words  concerning  ''P's"  fate  will  clinch  the 
argument  given  above  to  prove  that  there  was  a 
very  large  and  excellent  freedom  allowed  for 
critical  work  in  those  early  days  of  Judaism, 
the  very  days  when  the  Old  Testament  was 
taking  on  its  present  form. 

2.  Historical  study  of  Hebrew  literature, 
both  narrative  and  prophetic,  has  shown  that 
the  second  chapter  of  Genesis  is  the  beginning  of 


6o  Old  Testament  Criticism 

the  earliest  original  Hebrew  document  now 
extant;  and  that  the  framers  of  Genesis,  etc., 
used  it  as  one  of  their  "sources"  when  they 
composed  the  final  text,  which  we  now  possess 
in  the  Bible.  This  document,  commonly  known 
as  the  "lahwist"  or  "J,"  was  written  by  the 
school  of  writers  who  lived  about  900  B.C.,  as 
has  been  already  noted  above.  Its  aim  was 
probably  to  glorify  the  establishment  of  the 
Davidic,  united  Hebrew  State,  by  telling  the 
story  of  its  origin.  Historically  the  narrative 
is  wonderfully  reliable,  for  the  plain  reason  that 
standing  on  the  rather  low  ethical  level  of  its 
times,  say,  900  B.C.,  it  never  seeks  to  make  its 
heroes  appear  better  than  they  really  were. 

3.  The  second  document  used  by  the  final 
composers  of  the  Pentateuch  begins  to  appear 
in  Genesis,  chapter  xv.,  and  it  is  largely  used 
in  chapter  xx.  ff.  This  document  or  source  is 
now  commonly  known  as  the  "Elohist,"^  or 
"E."  Its  ethical  standard  is  higher  than  that 
of  ''J";  indeed,  as  we  have  seen,  it  seeks  to 
inculcate  the  great  moral  demands  made  by 
Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah.  No  doubt  it  was 
written  by  literary  companions  of  those  great 
reforming  preachers.  Its  aim  is,  in  general, 
to  lift  the  people  from  the  lower  "J"  level  of 
morality  up  to  far  better  ways. 

4.  In  450  B.C.  Nehemiah  was  sent  by  the 
Persian   Emperor  from  Shushan  to  Jerusalem, 


Of  Criticism  among   the  Jews         6i 

on  two  commissions  of  inspection,  and  he  carried 
with  him,  as  we  have  said  above,  a  book  of 
Torah  or  teaching;  and  this  book  was  evidently 
the  Priestly  Document,  "P."  It  is  based  on 
Ezekiel's  Temple  plan  which  rests  mediately 
on  "D,"  and,  therefore,  it  is  a  consequence  of 
the  Elohist  ''E,"  just  described  above.  The 
remarkable  relationship  between  "P"  and  "E" 
may  be  observed  in  the  fact  that  "P"  fully 
adopts  "E's"  theory  of  entire  ignorance  of  the 
name  and  the  character  of  lahweh  until  Moses 
had  intimation  of  it  by  a  wonderful  revelation 
on  the  summit  of  vSinai  or  Horeb.  Of  course, 
this  opinion  that  the  name  and  character  were 
not  known  could  not  be  historically  correct; 
the  lahwistic  writer  in  900  B.C.  describes  the 
patriarchs  as  all  of  them  quite  well  acquainted 
with  the  name,  and  as  using  it  constantly,  and 
as  using  no  other.  The  sense  in  which  "E" 
and  "P"  are  correct  in  the  matter  is  that  these 
consider  the  people  to  have  been  ignorant  of 
the  moral  character  of  the  God  lahweh.  This 
is  quite  true;  but  they  always  say  that  the  very 
name  was  unknown,  whereas  it  was  not  so. 
We  need  not  continue  the  description  of  the 
several  documents.  vSurely  we  see  clearly  that 
each  writer,  or  school  of  writers,  felt  quite  free 
to  criticise  and  to  alter  records,  even  in  cases 
where  we  are  compelled  to  feel  that  what  they 
altered  had  been  correct. 


62  Old  Testament  Criticism 

5.  But  now  we  must  go  further  in  our  record 
of  criticism.  Nehemiah's  document  ("  P")  be- 
came the  great  "Torah"  or  Doctrinal  book  in 
450  B.C.  It  was  held  to  contain  and  to  express 
the  sum  and  substance  of  the  traditional  faith 
of  the  people,  held  ever  since  the  delivery  from 
Egypt,  and  therefore  called  ''the  Mosaic  Dec- 
trine."  The  word  "Torah"  simply  means 
"Doctrine."  Yet  ere  long  the  spirit  of  freedom 
took  another  notable  step,  and  "P,"  as  a  w^hole, 
was  changed.  For  an  editor  later  than  450 
B.C.  inserted  "J"  and  "E"  into  "P";  doing  so, 
perhaps,  for  the  sake  of  saving  these  latter  two 
from  loss.  So  that  fearless  editor,  or  a  school  of 
such  men,  made  our  present  Books  of  Moses 
by  a  new  combination  or  "insertion."  vShall 
we  not  say  that  this  editor's  principle  of  criticism 
was,  in  a  real  sense,  a  love  for  his  nation's 
literature!  He  and  his  comrades  of,  say,  300 
B.C.  would  save  all  they  could  of  that,  no  matter 
whether  one  document  in  the  combination 
contradicted  another.  The  conception  of  a 
peculiar  sacredness  in  one  part  more  than  in 
another  does  not  seem  to  have  entered  the 
horizon  of  their  minds.  And  then  the  still 
more  wonderful  fact  is  that  the  people  at  large 
did  not  object  to  the  combination.  We  are 
bound  to  believe  that  especially  the  thoughtful 
people  who  cared  for  literature,  who  loved  to 
save  the  older  writings,   and  whom  we  might 


Of  Criticism   among   the  Jews  63 

call  the  godly  people  of  those  Jewish  times, 
paid  no  regard  whatever  to  any  doctrine  of  the 
infallible  sacredness  of  Scriptures.  Here,  then, 
was  the  condition  of  criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  very  age  when  it  has  been  believed 
that  the  Jewish  people  were  in  close  touch  with 
the  Divine  Inspiring  Mind,  and  when  they 
were  receiving  inspirations  moving  them  to 
compose  even  farther  Scriptures.  Verily,  the 
dread  that  is  common  now,  or,  let  us  say,  that  has 
been  common  up  to  recent  years,  must  have 
grown  up  some  time  after  the  composition  of 
the  Pentateuch  was  completed.  Superstitious 
dread  of  change  did  not  arise  until  100  a.d.  at 
earliest.  It  grew  out  of  the  sad  conflict  between 
Christianity  and  Judaism. 

6.  In  closing  this  section,  let  us  bid  readers 
remember  well  the  remarkable  evidences  of 
differing  opinions,  and  even  of  keen  controver- 
sies going  on  concerning  these,  that  are  clearly 
discernible  on  the  pages  of  the  Pentateuch. 
It  is  remarkable  that  those  controversies  went 
on  concerning  the  very  things  in  the  records,  and 
at  the  very  points  in  them  which  the  Jewish 
people  must  have  counted  most  sacred,  most 
crucial,  most  essential.  It  will  not  do  to  fancy 
that  the  godly  Jews  just  before  Christianity 
differed  only  on  non-essentials.  Exactly  the 
opposite  is  true.  That  most  precious  literature 
contained  in  Genesis  and  the  other   "Mosaic" 


64  Old   Testament  Criticism 

books  was  composed  amid  the  stormiest  times 
of  theological  debate. 

2.     The  Criticism   of   Earlier  Jewish  Com- 
mentators UNDER  Greek  Rule 
AND  Influence 

We  might  abundantly  illustrate  this  by 
describing  the  effort  to  discard  the  very  Pen- 
tateuch itself,  by  substituting  "  Chronicles  "  in 
its  place.  But  space  forbids  us  to  do  more  than 
describe  how  the  finest  literature  of  all — namely, 
the  works  of  the  great  prophets — came  to  be 
annotated  and  enlarged.  We  choose  as  our 
example  the  Oracles  of  Jeremiah,  perhaps  the 
grandest  prophet  of  all. 

The  process  was  exactly  what  occurs  every- 
where when  we  make  marginal  notes;  only  in 
those  days  these  were  often  copied  into  the 
original  text. 

Our  illustration  requires  little  trust  in  special- 
ists; but  we  will  follow  a '  master-specialist, 
Professor  Duhm,  of  Basel. 

We  take  it  from  Jeremiah,  chapter  iv.,  5  to  31. 
By  far  the  best  parts  of  Jeremiah's  Oracles  are 
his  songs  concerning  the  Scythians.  These  were 
Tartar  hordes  from  Central  Asia,  who  swept 
south  over  the  Armenian  mountains  in  630  to 
620  B.C.  They  were  primitive  folk  hungry  for 
comfort,  and  especially  for  the  booty,  rich  and 


Of   Criticism   among   the  Jews  65 

abtindant,  which  they  were  sure  of  getting  if 
they  plundered  Nineveh,  the  imperial  capital 
of  Assyria.  Thence  they  marched  on  to  the 
farther  south  to  repeat  their  raidings  in  the 
rich  valley  of  the  Nile.  They  wrought  terrible 
mischief;  Assyria  was  shaken  to  the  core,  and 
ere  long,  in  609  B.C.,  she  fell  to  rise  no  more. 
So,  little  Judah  was  in  danger,  and  naturally  in 
terror  as  she  saw  these  wild  masses  of  warriors 
pouring  down  the  coast-line  on  their  way  towards 
Egypt.  It  was  true  that  the  position  of  Jeru- 
salem on  an  almost  inaccessible  mountain  top, 
more  than  two  thousand  feet  above  the  sea 
level,  and  with  sheer  precipices  all  around  her, 
made  that  city  safe;  and  this  position  had 
given  good  reason  for  Isaiah's  old  oracle  that 
the  God  of  the  Hebrews  had  made  their  city  and 
sanctuary  inviolable.  But  who  knew  when  the 
barbaric  horde  might  take  the  fancy  to  scale 
those  heights,  to  rob  of  all  the  little  wealth  that 
was  in  temple  and  in  homes,  and  to  slay  with 
red  hand  every  man,  woman,  and  child  that 
might  be  in  the  way.  Hence  Jeremiah's  task 
was  to  comfort  his  countrymen  in  face  of  such  a 
terror.  His  "Scythian  Songs"  were  written 
to  bring  such  comfort;  and  they  are  among  his 
finest  utterances.  The  earliest  of  them  are 
contained  in  a  short  series  given  in  chapter  iv. 
But  not  all  of  the  present  text  is  the  prophet's; 
indeed,  many  commentators  of  later  days  might 

5 


66  Old  Testament   Criticism 

well  set  their  notes  on  the  margins  of  such  grand 
songs,  since  they  are  so  wonderful.  We  will 
set  down  the  original  lyrics  and  the  later  anno- 
tations separately.  Lyric  (I.),  chapter  iv.,  5-8, 
is  in  four  stanzas : 

(i)  Blow  the  horn  in  the  land! 
Cry  with  loud  voice! 
Gather,  and  let  us  go 
To  the  strong  towns. 

(2)  Hoist  a  signal  towards  Zion! 
Fly!     Wait  not! 

For  evil  is  coming  from  the  north, 
And  terrible  destruction. 

(3)  The  lion  rose  from  his  thicket, 
And  the  Slayer  of  peoples: 

He  broke  out,  and  marched  from  his  place, 
To  desolate  the  earth. 

(4)  So  gird  you  with  sackcloth! 
Cry  and  wail! 

For  there  shall  not  turn  from  us 
The  anger  of  lahweh! 

Now  follows  verses  9-1 1  a,  which,  as  Duhm 
indicates,  have  quite  another  metre,  if  such 
blunt  prose  can  be  said  to  have  metre  at  all. 
The  tone  is  very  tame  in  comparison  with  the 
fire  of  what  we  have  just  read.  The  words 
added  are: 

"And  it  shall  come  to  pass  at  that  day, 
hath  said  lahweh,  that  the  heart  of  the  king 


By  kind  permission 

Bernhard  Duhm 

Dr.  Theol.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament  Theology,  Basel. 
67 


68  Old   Testament   Criticism 

shall  perish,  and  the  heart  of  the  princes; 
and  the  priests  shall  be  astonished,  and  the 
prophets  shall  wonder.  Then  said  I,  'Ah, 
Divine  lahweh,  surely  thou  hast  greatly 
deceived  this  people  and  Jerusalem,  say- 
ing, Ye  shall  have  peace ;  whereas  the  sword 
reacheth  unto  the  soul. '  At  that  time 
shall  it  be  said  to  this  people  and  to  Jeru- 
salem  " 

After  such  tame  remarks,  and  a  little  connective 
phrase  furnished  by  the  editor,  the  song  of 
Jeremiah  runs  on  again — Lyric  (II.),  verses 
I  lb- 1 6 — in  four  stanzas: 

(i)  A  wind  of  the  hottest  steppes  of  the  desert 
Blows  right  on  my  people; 

And  not   for  the  threshing  is  it,  and  not  for  cleans- 
ing. 
A  terrible  wind! 

A  little  bit  of  addition  is  inserted: 

''Now  will  I  also  utter  judgments  against 

them 

which  is  entirely  unlike  Jeremiah  in  tone,  as  well 
as  in  its  injury  to  the  metre.  The  second  stanza 
follows : 

(2)  See,  they  come  up  like  clouds; 

And  their  chariots  are  like  the  whirlwind; 
Faster  than  eagles  are  their  horses. 
Woe  to  us! — we  are  destroyed. 


Of  Criticism   among   the  Jews  69 

Again  the  editor  puts  in  a  word  of  edification : 

"O   Jerusalem!    wash   thine  heart  from 

wickedness,    that   thou   mayest   be   saved. 

How  long  shall   thy   vain   thoughts  lodge 

within  thee !  ' ' 
Then  comes  stanza  three,   clearly  marked  out 
from   this   comment  just   quoted,   which   is   so 
utterly  out  of  place: 

(3)  Listen,  they  are  calling  from  Dan! 
They  are  telling  of  mischief! 

From  the  mountain  of  Ephraim  they  give  warning 
(Crying  with  loud  voice). 

Here  is  a  needless  little  insertion — "Tell  Jeru- 
salem"; and  the  fourth  stanza  follows  full  of 
terror : 

(4)  See  panthers  [watchers?]  are  coming 
From  the  land  afar 
Against  Judah's  cities; 
They  lift  the  voice  all  round. 

Now  at  once,  again,  we  can  pick  out  an  addition 
— viz.,  verses  17b  and  18 — which  run  thus: 

"For  she  hath  been  rebellious  against 
me,  hath  lahweh  said.  Thy  way  and  thy 
doings  have  procured  these  things  unto 
thee.  This  is  thy  wickedness ;  for  it  is  bit- 
ter; it  reacheth  to  thy  heart." 
How  like  are  these  words  to  the  simple  sort  of 


70  Old   Testament    Criticism 

remarks  made  by  thoroughly  good,  but  quite 
untrained,  speakers  in  many  a  religious  meet- 
ing! One  recognises  at  once  the  ''few  remarks" 
pencilled  on  the  margin  of  the  great  singer's 
writings.  But  then  we  find  the  song  itself 
pouring  forth  again  in  one  of  the  most  striking 
parts  of  the  series — Lyric  (III.) ,  verses  19  to  2 1 — 
in  only  three  stanzas : 

(i)  O  my  bosom,  my  bosom,  how  I  tremble! 
And  O  my  inmost  soul! 
My  spirit  rages  in  me; 
My  heart  quivers. 

(2)  For  't  is  sound  of  the  war-horn  that  I  've  heard, 
The  cry  of  onset  in  battle; 

Ruin  runs  on  ruin. 
Wasted  is  all  the  land. 

(3)  Suddenly  are  my  tents  destroyed; 
In  an  instant  all  my  tent-covers! 
How  long  must  I  see  the  signal, 
And  hear  that  awful  trumpet's  blast! 

Again,  in  verse  22  follow  a  few  remarks,  in 
which  the  annotator  lets  us  see  plainly  that  he 
makes  a  peculiar  mistake;  for  he  writes  and 
thinks  as  if  lahweh  were  the  speaker  in  these 
lyrics,  whereas  it  is  clearly  the  prophet  that 
is  crying  out  as  in  terror.  We  quote  the  addi- 
tion: 

''For  my  people  is  foolish,  they  know 
me  not;  they  are  sottish  children,  and 
they  have  no  understanding ;  they  are  wise 


Of   Criticism   among  the  Jews  71 

to  do  evil,  but  to  do  good  they  have  no 

knowledge." 
Here  evidently  the  writer  is  far  away  in  time 
from  the  horrors  which  Jeremiah  sees;  he  would 
have  been  a  hard-hearted  man  that  could  have 
made  such  remarks  to  the  real  sufferers,  and  we 
can  honestly  say  that  our  annotator  was  no  hard 
man. 

Now    we    come   to   the   fourth    lyric — Lyric 
(IV.),  verses  23-26 — in  four  stanzas. 

(i)  I  looked  to  the  earth, 
And  lo  't  was  chaos! 
I  looked  to  the  sky: 
Fled  was  its  light. 

(2)  I  looked  to  the  mountains, 
And  lo  they  were  shaking; 
Yea,  all  hills. 

They  began  to  tremble. 

(3)  I  looked  to  earth,  the  home  of  men; 
And  lo  no  man  was  there. 

Even  all  fowls  of  the  heavens 
Had  fled,  had  flown  away. 

(4)  I  looked  to  the  corn  land, 
And  lo  it  was  a  waste. 

Yea,  all  the  towns  were  destroyed, 
Gone  before  lahweh. 

Again  the  editor  makes  additions,  in  verse  27/., 
quoting  Isaiah  by  the  way  in  his  remarks.  He 
says: 

''For    thus    hath    lahweh    said:     'The 


"J2  Old    Testament   Criticism 

whole  land  shall  be  a  desolation;  3^et  will 

I  not  make  a  full  end. '  " 
Then   he    quotes    a    truly   fine   passage  which, 
however,  is  hardly  Jeremiah's: 

Therefore  shall  the  earth  mourn, 
And  black  shall  be  the  heavens  above. 
For  I  have  spoken,  and  I  repent  not: 
I  have  planned,  and  I  fail  not. 

That  is  somewhat  unlike  Jeremiah's  tender 
heart;  and,  as  Duhm  says,  the  ideas  are  unsuit- 
able to  the  connection.  But  now  comes  the  last 
Scythian  Song — Lyric  (V.),  verses  29-31 — in 
five  stanzas: 

(i)  At  the  noise  of  the  troopers  and  the  bowmen 
The  whole  land  fiees. 

They  run  to  the  thickets  and  the  forests; 
They  climb  up  among  the  rocks. 

(2)  All  the  towns  are  forsaken: 
No  one  dwells  in  them. 

And  thou,  O  poor  violated  woman, 
What  art  thou  to  do? 

(3)  Tho'  thou  shouldst  put  on  golden  things, 
Tho'  thou  shouldst  clothe  thee  in  scarlet, 
Tho'  thou  shouldst  paint  thine  eyes; 

All  in  vain  wouldst  thou  look  fair. 

(4)  Lovers!     They  '11  only  mock  at  thee! 
They  are  seeking  thy  life. 

I  hear  a  cry  of  a  woman  in  childbirth, 
The  agony  of  one  with  her  firstborn. 


Of  Criticism    among  the  Jews  73 

(5)  Hark!  the  daughter  of  Zion  gasps; 
She  stretches  her  hands. 
O  woe  is  me  over  this  undoing 
Of  my  soul  among  the  murderers. 

Enough,  then,  of  illustration!  We  have  seen 
by  examination  of  the  finest  prophetic  products, 
and  of  the  most  sacred  ceremonial  forms,  as 
well  as  of  the  hoariest  narratives,  that  there 
was  always  a  readiness  to  criticise. 

Even  those  who  are  eager  to  learn  what  is  the 
"Biblical"  doctrine  in  such  a  matter  will  surely 
see  it  is  simply  a  history  of  utmost  freedom  from 
all  dreams  of  an  unchangeable  canon  of  Scrip- 
tures, and  that  the  constant  practice  of  our 
Bible  writers  was  the  freest  criticism. 

3.      Criticism     under    the     New    Kingdom 
from  150  b.c.  to  a.d.  i. 

Let  us  now  try  to  know  the  later  Jews  and 
their  literary  criticism;  and  more  especially 
let  us  seek  to  understand  how  Greek  influence 
affected  the  Jewish  use  of  the  old  Hebrew  litera- 
ture. To  this  end  we  must  examine  the  Jewish 
literary  work  of  the  three  pre-Christian  centuries 
themselves. 

I.  First  let  us  remember,  as  we  have  seen 
in  previous  pages,  what  a  generous  spirit  there 
was  in  the  leading  Jewish  literary  men  when  they 
came  under  the  influence  of  Alexander  and  his 


74  Old    Testament  Criticism 

followers  about  the  year  300  B.C.  They  had 
an  inheritance  we  seldom  think  of,  but  which 
was  of  signal  importance  and  noble  worth.  To 
go  back  two  and  a  half  centuries  to  about  550 
B.C.:  the  highest  level  of  thinking  attained  by 
old  Hebraism  is  seen  in  the  slave-songs  written 
then,  and  inserted  in  Deutero-Isaiah.^  These 
count  it  the  ideal  task  of  the  nation  not  to  go 
back  to  Judca  and  there  to  live  easily  on  the  old 
sacred  soil  which  had  been  believed  to  be  the 
only  soil  that  lahweh  could  bless,  but  to  stay 
in  the  foreign  lands,  so  that  they  might  there 
teach  all  men!  The  Hebrew  slaves  had  grasped 
a  new  ideal  altogether.  Now  the  instruction 
purposed  must  have  been  by  means  of  literature; 
so,  clearly,  there  had  to  be  in  those  days  much 
literary  thoughtfulness.  Then,  in  the  middle 
of  the  next  century,  about  450  B.C.,  when  there 
came  from  the  Babylonian  fellow- Jews  that 
Priestly  system  of  worship  which  we  have  de- 
scribed above, ^  the  very  essence  of  the  methods 
appointed  was  a  communion  between  the  Jew 
and  his  God  lahweh  in  study  of  certain  Records 
of  the  Past,  which  were  to  be  preserved  in  the 
precious  Casket,  or  '*Ark  of  Covenant";  and 
these  records  were  to  be  ever  and  anon  increased 
by  the  very  voice  of  lahweh  Himself  speaking 

•  Isaiah  xl.,  1-4;  xlix.,  1-6;  1.,  4-9;  and  chapter  liii. 
2  Bcghming   in   Genesis    i.,   and   richly   preserved    in 
Exodus  XXV.  ff. 


Of    Criticism   among  the  Jews  75 

to  the  communing  people.  Evidently,  then, 
a  continuing  thoughtfulness,  that  was  always 
being  crystallised  in  new  literary  products,  was 
the  core  of  the  Jews'  religion.  The  common 
notion  of  a  hard  and  iron  form  of  words  of 
"Law,"  that  dare  never  be  left,  but  must  be 
studied  and  followed  for  ever,  is  entirely  a 
mistaken  fancy  as  to  what  Judaism  was.  That 
notion  comes  from  a  misreading  of  early  Christ- 
ian literature  especially  of  the  Pauline  Epistle 
to  Rome. 

2.  The  Greeks  brought  their  life  into  the 
Palestinian  and  Babylonian  Jewish  society 
about,  say,  300  B.C.;  and  now  everything  tended 
still  more  towards  instruction  and  culture,  and 
helped  to  intensify  the  desire  for  continuation 
of  literary  effort,  and  to  increase  the  power  to 
think  and  to  write.  Besides,  the  Jew  was  natur- 
ally a  trader;  now  trade  itself  tends  always  to 
literary  fertility,  and  so  it  tended  then.  Hither- 
to the  Jews  had  been  cramped  much  by  their 
territorial  and  linguistic  limitations;  but  now 
they  were  welcomed  everywhere  as  traders,  and 
were  even  drawn  out  from  the  old  homes  to  live 
amid  the  wide-spreading  Greeks  and  their  new 
political  organisations.  Many  settled  in  Egypt, 
while  some  found  new  abodes  on  the  far  western 
Mediterranean  shores,  and  others  migrated  to 
the  far  east,  even  as  far  as  India.  The  reader 
of  what  we  call  the  Jewish  ' '  Wisdom ' '  literature 


76  Old   Testament   Criticism 

knows  how  thoroughly  the  books  of  "Proverbs,  " 
the  "Wisdom  of  Sirach's  Son,"  and  the  "Wis- 
dom of  Solomon"  are  treatises  on  life  and 
business  for  men  who  are  engaged  chiefly  in 
commerce;  and  we  must  notice,  though  surely 
it  should  go  almost  without  saying,  that  all 
that  literature,  all  the  collection  of  it  from  older 
or  newer  wise  men,  all  the  "criticism"  of  it, 
to  the  end  that  fresh  "books"  might  be  con- 
structed, was  the  free  and  rich  fruit  of  Jewish 
thoughtful  life.  In  short,  under  Greek  in- 
fluences and  impulses  a  vigorous  literary  activity, 
both  directly  productive  and  also  genuinely 
critical,  was  going  on  among  the  Jews  in  300 
B.C.  to  A.D.  I,  and  it  was  concerned  with  things 
commercial  as  well  as  religious  and  historical. 
3.  But  now  we  can  turn  to  another  large 
section  of  the  literary  activity  of  those  days, 
which  was  particularly  a  spiritual  kind  of 
literature,  or  which  was,  we  might  say,  a  tho- 
roughly devout  class  of  utterances;  and  as  we 
turn  to  this  first  field  we  shall  learn  two  things: 
namely,  on  the  one  hand,  how  deeply  spiritual, 
even  in  the  best  present-day  sense,  a  great  part 
of  those  Jews  were;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  how 
those  persons  of  finest  spirituality  used  abso- 
lute literary  freedom.  The  literature  that  we 
mean  was  the  Psalmody,  or,  in  simpler  and  truer 
expression,  the  hymns  and  other  poetry  of 
which  there  are  five  Books  in  the  Hebrew  Bible, 


Of   Criticism    among  the  Jews  77 

and  still  more  also  in  the  so-called  Book  of  the 
Psalms  of  Solomon.  The  studious  readers  of 
the  Old  Testament  are  growing  every  day  more 
certain  that  almost  the  whole  of  this  lyrical 
poetry,  if  not  indeed  the  whole,  dates  from  the 
times  we  are  considering — 300  B.C.  to  a.d.  t, 
or  even  to  a.d.  70.  Let  us  name  a  few  of  the 
best  Psalms,  and  then  we  may  ask  what  were 
the  critical  attitude  and  methods  of  their  com- 
posers and  singers. 

(a)  To  read  Psalm  xxii.,  verses  i  to  21,  is 
to  listen  certainly  to  the  soul  of  one  of  the  finest 
of  men.  Again,  Psalm  Ixxiii.  is  a  noble  effort 
to  understand  why  the  righteous  suffer  and 
the  unrighteous  do  not.  And,  moreover,  it 
grasps  a  faith  in  life  after  death.  Once  more. 
Psalm  cxxxix.  faces  truly,  if  very  simply,  the 
relation  of  our  life  to  that  of  the  Divine  Being, 
and  the  relation  of  spirit  to  space.  Such  was 
Judaism  in  that  period. 

(b)  If  these  are  somewhat  isolated  cases  of 
such  lofty  composition  and  deep  introspection, 
yet  their  composers  were  really  leaders  of  a 
large  and  well-known  class,  who  used  greatly 
those  Psalms  that  we  may  call  saint-hymns, 
because  they  are  ever  and  anon  using  the  term 
''saints" — i.e.,  the  Hebrew  word  for  it,  Hasidim. 
And  nearly  all  of  these  are  utterances  of  poets 
of  high  character,  both  in  spirit  and  in  word. 
It  is  of  interest  to  see  how  the  number  of  such 


78  Old   Testament   Criticism 

saint-hymns  is  quite  large  in  the  first  collection 
of  lyrics  that  was  made — viz.,  Psalms  i.-xli.; 
and  that  the  later  collections  included  far  fewer 
of  this  noble  class.  Probably  the  bitter  anta- 
gonisms that  arose  between  the  two  great  sec- 
tions, the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees,  tended 
to  lessen  the  general  interest  in  such  purity  of 
thought  as  time  went  on,  although  psalm-writing 
was  practised  more  and  more.  All  that  we  have 
just  seen  shows  the  presence  of  a  high  type  of 
character,  which  any  age  or  people  or  religious 
community  might  well  take  a  just  pride  in 
possessing. 

But  there  is  this  clear  fact  to  be  noted,  that 
the  authors  of  the  Psalms,  and  the  editors  who 
later  on  arranged  them  into  psalm-books,  used 
a  perfectly  free  hand  in  the  arranging  of  them, 
and  then  even  in  alteration  of  them.  They  put 
titles  to  them  that  had  evidently  nothing  to 
do  with  their  actual  origins;  they  set  the  name 
"  David"  at  the  head  of  a  good  many,  implying 
certainly  that  the  poems  had  something  to  do 
with  David,  but  believing  most  probably  that 
the  royal  Davidic  dynasty  of  the  olden  times, 
which  the  people  counted  in  some  way  imperish- 
able, had  been  gloriously  re-established  in  the 
new  independent  and  brilliant  Maccabean  or 
Hasmonean  kingdom.  "David"  was  restored 
and  raised  up;  so  the  psalm-editors  entitled 
the  Psalms  as  "For  David" — i.e.,  "For  the  new 


Of  Criticism  among  the  Jews  79 

kingdom."  And  why  not!  Then,  again,  the 
literary  people  composed  some  of  their  finest 
hymns  or  psalms  by  piecing  together  portions  of 
older  compositions — as  some  one  evidently  did 
even  in  the  case  of  that  wonderfully  noble  poem 
Psalm  xxii.  Or  at  times  they  did  the  opposite, 
separating,  for  example,  a  single  poem  into 
the  two  Psalms  xlii.  and  xliii.  This  last  case 
leads  to  the  mention  of  another  critical  process 
which  is  followed  in  the  second  Book  of  Psalms, 
numbers  xlii.  to  Ixxii.,  whose  compiler  counted 
it  right  and  necessary  to  strike  out  the  name 
lahweh,  the  personal  name  of  the  Hebrew  Deity, 
from  all  the  hymns  he  selected.  He  substituted 
in  all  cases  the  generic  name  "Gods"  (Elohim).^ 
Why  he  did  so  is  hard  to  tell:  perhaps  he  was 
superstitious,  and  feared  to  let  the  name  lahweh 
be  uttered  aloud ;  or  he  may  have  been  imitating 
the  early  prophetically-influenced  narrator  "E" 
in  the  books  of  Genesis,  etc.,  who  for  theological 
reasons  effaced  the  name  "lahweh"  from  all 
stories  of  the  pre-Mosaic  patriarchs.  In  any 
case,  here  we  have  a  freedom  quite  unlike  that 
supposed  unalterable  character  of  Old  Testa- 

1  His  pen  has  indeed  slipped,  and  forgotten  its  task 
in  a  case  or  two.  Yet  note,  by  the  way,  that  one  of 
the  hymns  included  by  him,  Psalm  liii.,  is  a  copy  of 
Psalm  xiv.  of  the  First  Book;  and  there,  in  Psalm  xiv., 
the  name  "lahweh"  is  duly  written.  Psalm  liii. 
alters  "lahweh"  to  "Gods." 


8o  Old  Testament  Criticism 

ment  Scriptures  that  many  a  one  to-day  believes 
to  have  existed  among  the  Jews.  Such  a  fixity 
simply  did  not  exist. 

4.  We  have  discovered  that  the  Jews  of 
the  purest  spiritual  character  in  the  later  part 
of  the  period  300  B.C.  to  i  a.d.  felt  quite  free 
to  criticise  and  to  alter  the  Psalms.  This 
discovery  is  abundantly  confirmed  when  the 
student  examines  the  Aramaic  versions  of  all 
the  Old  Testament  which  were  familiar  in 
Palestine  in  the  time  of  Jesus.  Hebrew  had 
gone  out  of  use,  save  for  scholastic  purposes,  at 
the  period  when  the  great  exile,  or  enslavement 
by  the  Babylonian  armies,  had  taken  place  — 
about  600  B.C.  The  few  poor  people  who  were 
left  in  the  land  seem  to  have  been  unable  to 
assert  their  linguistic  individuality  as  against 
the  overpowering  influence  of  their  Aramaic,  or 
Syriac,  neighbours  of  northern  Palestine,  who 
must  have  pressed  into  the  deserted  land  to 
exploit  it.  So  Aramaic  became  the  language 
of  the  new  Jewish  nation  that  gradually  grew 
up  on  the  old  soil.  Therefore,  for  the  use  of  the 
Palestinian  Jews,  it  became  necessary  to  trans- 
late the  Torah  of  "Moses"  and  other  needed 
Scriptures  into  that  Aramaic  tongue  which 
these  Palestinian  Jews  alone  spoke  and  under- 
stood. The  preaching  to  which  Jesus  listened, 
and  in  which  he  probably  took  part,  must  have 
been  largely  an  explaining  of  the  written  Hebrew 


Of  Criticism  among  the  Jews  8i 

books  in  this  Syriac  language,  or  Aramaic, 
which  the  audiences  could  understand.  There- 
fore we  may  examine  the  Aramaic  versions, 
commonly  called  Targums,^  to  see  what  sort  of 
criticism  was  customary  among  the  preachers 
and  writers  who  made  those Targum expositions. 
In  a  word,  here  is  a  clear  way  of  learning  the 
critical  methods  followed  by  the  Palestinian 
leaders  in  our  period.  We  have  space  only  to 
summarise;  and  the  main  result  of  examination 
of  these  Aramaic  translations  or  expositions 
is  that  we  find  a  very  free  handling.  For  example, 
we  find  alterations  of  many  hard  and  cruel 
passages  into  mildness.  Even  passages  in  the 
Pentateuch  (such,  e.g.,  as  the  saying  in  the 
Decalogue  that  "the  sins  of  the  fathers  were 
to  be  visited  on  the  children  for  generations ") 
were  altered  by  the  Aramaic  preachers — by 
adding  the  qualification,  "but  only  if  the  children 
themselves  do  sin."  Such  a  free  alteration  is 
very  common  in  these  Aramaic  translations. 
It  may  be  added  that  we  possess  to-day  two 
different  Aramaic  versions,  one  hailing  from  the 
teachers  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  other  from 
teachers  in  distant  regions ;  and  the  curious  fact 
is  that  the  Jerusalem  men  were  by  far  the  more 
liberal  and  more  ready  to  alter  the  original. 
Of   course,    this   is   natural;   the   students  in  a 

1  This  is  the  same  word  as  Dragom-an — i.e.,   inter- 
preter. 
6 


82  Old  Testament  Criticism 

capital  city  are  likely  to  be  more  liberal  than 
those  in  the  provinces. 

5.  There  is  a  farther  area  which  might  be 
studied — viz.,  the  alterations  of  the  Torah  or 
Doctrine  book  as  manifest  by  comparison  of  our 
present  Hebrew  text  with  the  Septuagint,  which 
was  made  from  an  earlier  Hebrew  than  ours. 
After  the  LXX.  was  made,  the  Hebrew  text  was 
much  altered,  as  may  be  seen  by  examination  of 
Genesis  xlvii.,  5,  6.  But  space  forbids  a  look  at 
this  fascinating  comparison. 


Chapter  IV 

The  Early  Christians'  Treatment  of  the 
'  Old  Testament 

I.     From  Jesus  Himself  Down  to  the  Fix- 
ture OF  THE  "CaNOxN"  or  "  RuLES 

OF  THE  Faith":  a.d.  30-150 

Of  Jesus' s  Own  Way,  and  the  Early  Christians' 
Use  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures 

(I)  His  Principle  of  Action. — Here  we  are 
bound  to  ask,  first,  What  exactly  was  the  attitude 
of  Jesus,  the  carpenter  of  Nazareth,  towards  the 
Old  Testament? 

The  kernel  of  that  attitude  seems  to  be 
contained  in  the  words  found  in  Matthew 
xxiii.,  I  to  3:  "Then  Jesus  talked  to  the  multi- 
tudes and  to  his  disciples,  saying,  'In  the  very 
seat  of  Moses  do  the  scribes  and  the  Pharisees 
sit;  all  things,  therefore,  so  far  as  they  may  say 
to  you,  these  observe  to  do.  According  to  their 
works,  however,  do  ye  not,  for  they  say  rightly, 
and  do  badl}^'  "  This  passage  seems  worthy 
to  be  set  with  the  "pillar-passages"  pointed 
83 


84  Old  Testament  Criticism 

out  by  Dr.  Schmiedcl  as  sure  to  have  been  actu- 
ally spoken  by  Jesus.  It  seems  very  likely  that 
these  words  would  never  have  been  placed  in  the 
narrative  unless  the  writers  of  the  Gospels  had 
actually  found  them  in  the  original  tradition 
from  which  they  drew ;  for  they  seem  to  go  right 
in  the  teeth  of  what  the  Gospel  narrators  them- 
selves would  be  likely  to  say  in  order  to  support 
their  own  case  as  against  the  claims  of  those 
Jews  whom  the  writers  of  this  "Matthew"  Gos- 
pel sought  to  convince.  It  seems  entirely 
probable  that  Jesus  did  utter  the  saying  we  have 
quoted.  Surely,  then,  he  did  agree,  as  here 
stated,  with  the  claim  of  the  scholars  of  his  time, 
that  they  had  a  perfect  right  to  alter  even  the 
so-called  "Mosaic"  regulations.  We  have  seen 
how  freely  the  scholars  of  the  three  or  four 
centuries  after  400  B.C.  added  to  the  "Mosaic 
Doctrine,"  or  took  away  from  it,  or  altered  it, 
when  they  felt  they  ought  so  to  do;  they  en- 
larged, they  softened,  they  expunged,  they 
transposed;  they  did  as  they  believed  that  their 
own  God-guided  judgment  led  them.  And  here 
Jesus  says  that  in  so  doing  they  did  right.  This, 
then,  is  Jesus'  own  view  concerning  criticism 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

(II)  His  Own  Use  of  the  Old  Testament. — 
Now,  if  we  could  be  quite  sure  of  the  significa- 
tion of  the  present  existing  Gospel  narratives,  so 
as  to  know  their  exact  relations  to  the  actual 


By  the  Early  Christians  85 

history  of  Jesus;  and  if  we  could  tell  what  pas- 
sages really  come  from  his  own  actual  times, 
and  how  much  is  rather  the  "preaching"  of 
later  generations  as  it  grew  up  around  the 
original:  then  we  could  venture  with  some 
certainty  to  examine  the  actual  quotations  from 
the  Old  Testament  found  in  these  Gospels,  and 
we  could  see  exactly  how  Jesus  used  the  Old 
Testament  literature.  But  New  Testament  stu- 
dents, hard  as  they  are  toiling,  have  not  yet 
shown  us  with  sufficient  certainty  how  far  the 
Old  Testament  quotations  attributed  to  Jesus 
were  really  made  by  him.  However,  it  is  not 
a  large  or  a  difficult  task  to  read  all  the  quota- 
tions supposed  to  have  been  made  by  him,  and 
recorded  in  the  simplest  and  most  original  of  the 
narratives — that,  namely,  of  "Mark";  and 
when  we  do  so  we  can  form  atleast  an  approxi- 
mate idea  of  Jesus'  way  of  quotation.  There 
are  scarcely  a  dozen  of  such  quotations;  and 
every  one  of  them  shows  a  freedom  that  would 
be  startling  if  we  had  to  think  that  Jesus  re- 
garded the  Old  Testament  as  anything  more 
than  the  honoured  literature  of  his  nation, 
which  he  was  at  liberty  to  alter,  and  which  also 
every  one  was  perfectly  at  liberty  to  mould  to 
his  own  purpose  for  illustration  of  what  he 
might  be  teaching. 

We  can  see  clearly  that  Jesus  maintained  the 
real   Jewish  attitude  of   freedomx  towards   the 


86  Old  Testament  Criticism 

national  literature;  his  earlier  followers  did  the 
same.  If  all  his  followers  had  done  so,  there 
might  never  have  been  any  superstitious  treat- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament,  and  there  would  not 
have  arisen  any  opposition  to  the  steady  ad- 
vance of  truly  critical  method.  Jesus,  like  all 
thoughtful  Jews  thus  far  observed,  heralded 
the  modem  historical  method;  he  would  be  a 
leader  in  our  present-day  critical  study.  This 
discovery  which  is  quite  familiar  to  scholarly 
men,  honours  in  the  highest  that  unwavering 
fearlessness  in  Biblical  criticism  which  has  all 
along  marked  the  noble  investigators  of  the 
past  nineteenth  century,  and  which  will  ere 
long  become  the  universal  Christian  method. 
But  we  turn  to  see  how  a  change  intervened. 

(Ill)  Of  the  Rise  of  Canon,  and  of  Super- 
stitions Use  of  Bible. — We  must  compress  into 
few  words  the  intensely  interesting  story  of 
several  generations.  It  is  remarkable  that^the 
mind  of  thoughtful  Jews  concerning  these 
generations,  and  that  of  studious  Christians,  is 
coming  to  be  almost  identical.  We  might 
follow  fairly  closely  the  account  given  by  the 
brilliant  Jewish  historian  Graetz,  in  his  great 
work  on  The  History  of  the  Jews,  and  should 
find  little  in  it  that  would  not  be  accepted  by 
any  careful  student. 

I.  Concerniitg  Paul. — The  substance  of  the 
story  is  this.     The  beautiful,  tender,  and  truly 


By  the  Early  Christians  87 

powerful  work  of  Jesus  might  have  passed  out 
of  memory  nearly  unknown  had  not  Paul's  keen 
enthusiasm  grasped  the  idea  of  the  Anointed 
Lord — i.e.,  of  the  "lahweh"  nature  of  Jesus. 
Paul,  thus  moved,  threw  his  immense  energy 
into  the  peculiar  line  of  work  that  we  know  so 
well.  His  insight  grasped  the  idea  of  that  love 
for  man  as  man,  apart  from  the  limits  of  the 
seed  or  blood  of  Abraham,  which  had  been  at 
the  kernel  of  Jesus'  preaching  and  purpose. 
Thus,  intensively,  that  great  missionary  under- 
stood the  new  World-Gospel;  and  speedily  he 
went  out  consistently  to  the  ends  of  the  earth 
to  realise  the  good  message  extensively.  The 
work  of  the  missionary  Paul  was  done  soon  after 
50  A. D. ;  and,  through  that  labour  in  all  the  wide 
marches  of  the  empire,  Jews  and  Gentiles  soon 
learned  to  trust  "Jesus  as  Lord,  or  lahweh  and 
Christ,"^  and  to  count  the  God  and  Father  of 
Jesus  as  their  Almighty  Saviour.  Then  in  the 
wonderful  Epistle  to  Rome — either  written  by 
this  missionary  or  penned  perhaps  a  century 
later — the  fiery  word  and  thought  consume 
away  the  old  Jewish  limited  faith  that  only  by 
exact  accordance  with  the  Abrahamic  birth  and 

•  Let  us  use  the  word  "lahweh"  instead  of  "Lord," 
for  it  clarifies  the  whole  story.  Moreover,  it  is  well 
known  that  many  so-called  "Gnostic"  Christians  in 
the  second  century  spoke  commonly  of  Jesus  as  "  laou.  " 
See  Colenso,  vol.  v.,  318  ff. 


88  Old  Testament  Criticism 

by  the  Mosaic  methods  could  a  soul  be  pleasing 
to  God. 

2.  Is  it  not  thus  quite  clear  how  there 
emerged  the  causes  of  bitter  antagonism  on  the 
part  of  the  Jews,  who  held  to  the  Abrahamic 
Blood-Descent  as  the  all-in-all,  against  the 
Pauline  Christianity — viz.,  Paul's  rejection  of 
that  claim,  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  his  claim  that  Jesus  was  truly  lahweh? 
Here  were  two  crucial  causes  of  antagonism. 
We  can  see  easily  that  this  antagonism  was  sure 
to  produce  a  divergence  of  attitudes  concerning 
the  use  and  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. At  once  all  the  efforts  of  the  official 
Judaism  were  thrown  into  the  struggle  to  exalt 
the  Pentateuch  with  its  Abrahamic  and  Mosaic 
theory  as  the  sole  rule  of  life.  From  that  time 
until  now  that  great  Torah  is  to  the  Jew  the 
unalterable  Book,  Palladium,  and  almost  Nu- 
mai  or  God-manifest.  On  the  other  hand,^  the 
young  Christian  effort  became  concentrated  on 
opposition  to  this  theory,  and  on  exaltation  of 
faith  in  the  ever-present  and  inspiring  word  of 
the  Great  Spirit.  These  two  streams  of  antagon- 
ism can  be  seen  as  clearly  as  the  distinct 
waters  of  the  Rhone  and  the  Arve  at  Geneva ! 
How  much  of  all  the  later  history  of  the  two 
religions,  Christianity  and  Judaism,  has  come 
from  that  division?  Of  course  the  universalism 
of  Christianity,  so  far  as  it  was  preserved,  was 


By  the  Early  Christians  89 

the  trul}^  lineal  descendant  of  the  noble  faith  of 
the  exiled  Hebrew  who  wrote  Isaiah  xlix.;  and 
so,  too,  within  Judaism  there  is  to  this  day  a 
strong  and  large  party  who  count  Israel's  mis- 
sion to  be  to  the  whole  world,  although  there  is 
also  the  powerful  traditional  party  who  refuse 
an.y  recognition  of  the  uncircumcised.  Exactly 
so,  also,  are  there  two  great  parties  within 
Christianity :  one  leaning  to  traditional  claims 
— though,  indeed,  anti- Jewish  claims — of  au- 
thority attaching  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  also 
to  all  else  that  might  be  easily  combined  with 
that  Hebrew  product;  while  the  other  has 
always  believed  that  the  eternally  inspiring 
Spirit  God  teaches  ever  new  revelations  in 
every  new  age. 

But  how  could  the  reactionary  tendency  and 
doctrine  of  a  limitation  of  God's  inspiration 
gain  a  hold  amid  the  followers  of  Paul?  So 
asks  the  student,  very  naturally;  and  the  an- 
swer is  at  hand  and  manifold.  Out  of  the 
grand  faith  of  Paul  in  the  Inspiring  Presence 
amid  all  Christian  souls  arose  speedily  a  widely 
spread  delight  in  assimilating  all  kinds  of  non- 
Jewish  opinions,  and  even  many  of  the  would- 
be-wise  subjective  opinions  gotten  through 
so-called  visions  and  dreamy  fancies.  Hence 
the  kaleidoscopic  array  of  Gnostic  theories,  a 
sea  in  which  anything  really  rational  might 
easily  have  been  lost.     This  tendency  caused  at 


90  Old  Testament  Criticism 

once  an  opposite  tendency  to  reaction,  and 
orthodoxy  fell  back  upon  adhesion  to  the  ancient 
inspirations  which  the  narrower  Judaism  held 
to  be  alone  sacred.  The  outcome  that  called 
itself  the  orthodox  Christian  doctrine  was  a 
faith  in  the  utter  sanctity  of  the  old  Hebrew 
literature  on  the  one  hand,  and  faith  in  this 
combined  with  the  Pauline  and  Paulinistic 
literature  on  the  other. 

3.  Again,  there  was  a  strongly  influential 
force  at  work  to  aid  this  orthodoxy,  which  was 
partly  economic  and  partly  ecclesiastic.  Even 
Graetz,^  in  his  History  of  the  Jews,  says  distinctly 
and  freely  that  the  new  religious  leaders  brought 
a  gospel  for  the  poor,  which  was  recognised  by 
suffering  men  in  every  region  and  nation ;  and 
it  was  this  blessing  of  the  Christian  evangel 
that  undermined  Judaism  on  her  own  territory. 
Judaism  is,  indeed,  to-day  perhaps  the  finest 
existing  provider  for  the  poor ;  but  in  that  ^arly 
day  she  let  another  step  in  before  her.  Christ- 
ianity learned  well  the  hereditary  beneficent 
spirit  of  Hebraism  and  Judaism;  and  the  young 
daughter  religion  won  the  heritage  of  the  noble 
old  mother. 

Now  it  was  in  this  region  of  beneficence  that 
there  lay  one  of  the  first  objects  of  earliest 
Christian  organisation.  Hence  economic  and 
ecclesiastical  rcquiiremcnts  inHucnced  decidedly 

'  See  Bibliography. 


By  the  Early  Christians  91 

the  establishment  of  a  so-called  Rule  or  Canon 
which  should  be  the  Standard  of  Instruction, 
previous  to  admission  to  the  privileges  of  the 
Fellowship;  and  therewith  was  set  up  a  super- 
stitious view  of  the  Old  Testament  as  something 
normative  and  regnant.  Henceforth  that  col- 
lection dared  not  be  counted  as  literature,  and 
might  not  be  criticised  like  other  writings.  From 
this  time  on  there  grew  the  effort  to  preserve  the 
Books  in  the  exact  form  that  existed  when  the 
Canonical  theory  was  established.  Hencefor- 
ward criticism  had  to  be  content  to  be  what 
we  now  distinguish  as  "Lower  Criticism" — 
i.e.,  the  care  of  the  individual  words  and  even 
of  the  particular  spelling  of  them,  all  to  the 
end  that  the  Christian  might  be  able  to  see  for 
himself  exactly  what  form  of  words  had  been 
given  and  established  as  the  Rule  of  Life.  Up 
to  this  time,  as  we  have  seen,  amid  Judaism 
and  in  the  earlier  Christianity  of  Jesus  and  of 
Paul,  thoughtful  men  felt  perfectly  free  to  alter 
the  literature,  to  add  or  to  subtract  or  to  vary, 
and  to  supplement  by  new  writings  or  by  com- 
m.ents  on  the  old.  Now  no  longer  might  any 
such  freedom  be  used:  the  sacred  words  were 
regarded  as  having  been  uttered  and  written 
once  for  all.  So  had  entered  into  history,  alas, 
both  among  Christians  and  Jews,  the  idea  that 
only  a  certain  ecclesiastically  authorised  few 
have  had  or  ever  could  have  direct  inspiration 


9-  Old  Testament  Criticism 

by  the  omnipresent  Divine  Spirit.  Economic 
care  and  ecclesiastical  methods  are  both  good, 
and  even  essential;  but  if  they  rule  they  are 
deadly. 

2.     Of    the    Old    Testament    Criticism    of 
Origen  and  his  Comrades 

If  the  material  inertia  of  economics  and  of 
churchly  organisation  has  mightily  held  back 
the  freedom  of  spiritual  life,  and  has  done  so 
signally  in  the  case  just  described,  where  an 
iron  and  deadening  rule  was  laid  upon  the 
keenest  and  finest  spiritual  life,  yet  the  spirit- 
uality of  men  has  always  set  to  work  at  once  to 
burst  all  such  bonds.  This  is  finely  illustrated 
by  the  noble  thoughtfulness  of  the  early  master- 
critic  Origen. 

We  are  fortunate  to-day  in  having  in  our 
hands  the  work,  minute  and  m.asterly,  of  such 
historians  as  Graetz,  Dill,  Glover,  Harnack;^ 
for  we  can  trust  these  to  tell  us  the  condition  of 
religious  life.  Christian  and  otherwise,  during 
the  generations  from  about  150  to  350  a.d.  If 
we  give  generally  few  special  references  to  such 
teachers,  it  is  because  space  is  limited;  more- 
over, it  is  of  little  value  to  quote  isolated  passages 
from  this  or  that  book,  and  it  is  far  better  to 
indicate  simply  how  and  where  he  who  is  willing 

1  See  Bibliography. 


By  the  Early  Christians  93 

to  investigate  for  himself  may  consult  the  works 
of  scholarly  men,  rather  than  give  mere  sen- 
tences from  their  pages. 

In  the  period  that  we  have  just  marked  out 
for  our  view  there  lived  and  wrote  not  a  few 
noble  men  whose  influence  has  moulded  the 
world  ever  since.  The  earliest  of  those  few, 
among  such  as  we  must  name,  was  Marcion,  of 
Asia  Minor  first,  and  afterwards  of  Rome;  he 
lived  and  toiled  for  the  accomplishment  of  the 
Kingdom  of  his  Anointed  Lord  about  150  a.d. 
His  toil  had  immense  effect  for  good,  although 
he  has  been  counted  an  arch-heretic.  Soon 
after  him,  about  178  a.d.,  the  so-called  "hea- 
then" Celsus  flourished,  and  wrote  a  keen 
attack  on  the  Christians  and  their  ways;  pro- 
bably it  was  in  Egypt  that  he  worked,  for  he  was 
opposed  vigorously  by  the  great  Alexandrian 
Origen.  It  is  well  to  quote  Glover's^  sentence, 
p.  240 :  "  CelvSus  was  above  all  a  man  of  culture 
— candid,  scholarly,  and  cool."  Hence  we  may 
see  that  the  atmosphere  was  well  fitted  to  keep 
men's  minds  clear  and  sweet.  At  Alexandria 
at  the  same  time  was  the  Grecian  Clement,  born 
about  150  A.D.,  a  very  leader  of  students  until 
he  died  in  211  a.d.  A  great  contemporary,  of 
Egypt  also,  but  later  far  west  in  Carthage  was 
TertuUian,  another  leader  among  students  of 
Scripture.     But  the  greatest  of  all  was  Origen, 

'  See  Bibliography. 


94  Old  Testament  Criticism 

living  about  160-240  a.d.  ;  he  was  for  a  long  time 
chief  teacher  in  the  Theological  School  in  Alex- 
andria, and  then  also  for  many  years  in  Palestine 
a  quiet  investigator  of  Greek  versions  of  the 
Old  Testament,  until  he  died  in  Tyre  at  the 
age  of  almost  seventy.  Alongside  of  this  chief 
may  well  be  named  one  like-minded,  of  a  half- 
century  later,  Lucian  of  Antioch,  the  diligent 
student    and   restorer   of   texts,    who    died   in 

311- 

All  these,  even  including  Celsus,  were  busy 
searchers  into  the  records  that  we  call  the  Old 
Testament.  And  all  show  by  their  arguments 
and  practice  that  there  was  growing  up  into 
strength  a  theory  of  legalistic  authority  of  the 
Scriptures;  that,  indeed,  both  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testaments  were  beginning  to  be  regarded 
as  in  some  way  divinely  ordained  to  be  the  rules 
by  which  all  Christian  life  must  be  governed. 

As  we  look  closely  we  learn  that  Marcion  and 
Celsus  were  in  a  sense  at  the  two  opposite  poles 
of  respect  for  the  Old  Hebrew  and  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures; for,  while  Celsus  declared  that  the  Jews 
were  far  more  sensible  in  their  devotion  to  their 
documents  than  were  the  Christians  in  following 
the  new  literature,  Marcion  taught  that  the 
Old  Testament  must  be  laid  aside  entirely,  and 
that  only  the  new  Gospel  concerning  Jesus,  as 
seen  in  Paul,  may  rightly  be  used.  Marcion's 
view  was  that,  to  quote  Harnack,  "the  Pauline 


By  the  Early  Christians  95 

criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  must  be 
laid  down  as  the  basis  of  all  religious  thinking ' ' ; 
and,  again:  "To  Marcion  this  Paulinism,  cut  off 
entirely  from  any  touch  with  the  Old  Testament, 
was  the  real  Christianity."  But  Harnack 
moves  on  to  an  even  more  striking  utterance: 
"Marcion's  insight  led  him  to  a  historical  crit- 
icism of  all  Christian  tradition.  Marcion  was 
the  first  Christian  to  undertake  such  a  t^sk. 
He  determined  to  set  Christianity  on  the  firm 
basis  of  a  definite  conception  of  what  is  really 
Christian;  and  this  conception  he  purposed  to 
secure  by  a  collection  of  Christian  writings 
which  should  have  'Canonical'  importance. 
He  was  the  first  to  grasp  this  idea  [of  a  Canon], 
and  to  realise  it  in  a  large  measure."  Then 
Harnack  adds  this  further  remarkable  testimony, 
that  "Marcion  was  not  a  systematic  thinker 
indeed;  but  he  was  more,  for  he  was  a  religious 
character;  and,  much  more  than  that,  he  was  a 
man  of  such  organising  ability  as  was  no  other 
person  among  the  early  Christians."  Here, 
then,  was  the  dividing  point  in  the  road,  and 
we  shall  go  on  to  see  how  thoughtful  men  fell  into 
this  snare  laid  by  so  good  a  man ;  they  counted  a 
"Canon"  necessary  to  organised  Christianity. 
That  snare  is  forever  mischievous;  and  yet,  even 
when  falling  into  such,  the  aims  of  the  mistaken 
leaders  have  always  shown  the  real  mind  down 
deep  within  their   souls,   the  mind  and   spirit 


96  Old  Testament  Criticism 

of  freedom,  and  the  necessity  of  freedom  of 
judgment. 

For,  as  first  and  excellent  illustration  of  this, 
we  find  Tertullian  teaching  fifty  years  later  that 
no  one  can  come  to  the  Scriptures  as  to  an 
authority  unless  he  is  already  a  Christian;  that 
is  to  say,  Tertullian  counts  Scripture  as  excellent 
material  for  devotional  edification  of  Christians, 
since  it  is  all  a  panorama  of  godly  life,  and  there- 
fore a  good  guide  and  an  authority  for  Christian 
souls ;  yet,  as  he  declares,  it  is  of  no  use  to  present 
it  as  authoritative  to  minds  outside. 

Again,  Clement  also  taught,  indeed,  that  all 
argument  must  be  based  on  Scripture;  but,  then, 
his  vv^hole  argumentative  use  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  allegorical.  To  quote  Harnack's 
description  of  such  "Gnostic"  method  in  illus- 
tration of  our  proposition:  "Nothing  [in  Scrip- 
ture] was  what  it  seemed  to  be;  all  was  but  a 
symbol  of  something  unseen.  The  story  of.  the 
Old  Testament  was  sublimated  into  a  record  of 
the  emancipation  of  reason  from  passion." 

Origen  likewise  was  a  Gnostic  of  the  most 
thorough  sort.  He  held  that  there  are  three 
quite  different  meanings  in  every  part  of  the 
Scriptures — to  wit :  first,  the  Pneumatic  meaning, 
by  which  he  meant  the  final  ideas  which  will 
have  in  the  student's  soul  a  mystical,  self -evi- 
dencing nature  when  once  they  are  gained;  then, 
secondly,  the  Psychic  meaning  or  moral  signili- 


By  the  Early  Christians  97 

cation,  which  is  to  be  got  by  stripping  off  the 
husk  oE  mere  history;  and,  thirdly,  there  is  the 
Somatic  meaning,  or  the  historic  sense,  which 
should  indeed  be  found  first  of  all,  but  then  is 
to  be  thrown  away  as  mere  Jewish  and  fleshly 
stuff,  especially  when  it  contradicts  the  reason 
or  the  nature  of  God.  Such  was  the  conception 
of  the  relative  rank  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  stu- 
dious mind;  the  latter,  the  inner  mind  of  the 
student,  was  clearly  felt  to  be  the  judge.  The 
mind  was  the  court  wherein  alone  sat  the  ulti- 
mate authority;  and  the  mind  of  man  was  also 
the  voice  of  that  judge.  No  wonder  that  Origen 
has  been  respected  ever  since  as  one  of  the  ablest 
and  most  honourable  representatives  of  Christian 
mental  activity. 

Such  were  the  personal  character  of  Origen 
and  his  inner  principle  of  studious  work  with 
Scriptures;  but  let  us  now  turn  to  observe  the 
results  of  his  activity.  His  greatest  work,  so 
far  as  our  particular  quest  is  concerned,  was 
his  so-called  "Hexapla."  This  exhibited  in 
six  parallel  columns,  or  perhaps  in  eight,  the 
various  differing  texts  of  the  Old  Testament — 
viz.:  (i.)  the  Hebrev/  written  in  its  own  letters; 
(ii.)  the  same  Hebrew  written  with  Greek  charac- 
ters— a  very  gold-mine,  by  the  way,  for  the 
student,  since  it  shows  us  how  Hebrew  words 
sounded  to  the  Greek  ear  of  Origen;  (iii.)  next 
stood  a  Grcc!:  translation  of  a  somewhat  strained 


9^  Old  Testament  Criticism 

sort,  seeking  to  be  very  exact,  and  made  by  a 
scholarly  and  devoted  Jew  named  Aquila,  who 
had  once  been  a  Christian,  and  who  had  been 
moved  by  what  he  thought  Christian  extrava- 
gances to  make  a  translation  of  "Moses,"  etc., 
which  should  controvert  Christianity;  (iv.)  next 
followed  a  column  giving  another  Greek  trans- 
lation— on  the  whole,  a  very  good  version — made 
by  one  Symmachus,  a  proselyte  from  Samaritan- 
ism  to  Judaism,  as  some  have  reported,  who 
also  sought  to  oppose  Christianity  by  his  version ; 
(v.)  the  fifth  column  contained  what  is  better 
known  to  us  as  the  Septuagint  Greek  version, 
or  we  had  better  say  "a  Septuagint,"  for  the 
number  of  various  Septuagints  amazes  the 
student;  and,  finally  (vi.),  there  stood  a  column 
containing  a  translation  by  one  Theodotion, 
who  was  also  a  proselyte  to  Judaism,  but  in  this 
case  had  turned  to  it  from  following  Marcion. 
Such  was  theHexapla — lost,  alas!  ere  many  gen- 
erations had  passed  over  it,  yet  fairly  well 
known  to  us  through  quotations  and  descrip- 
tions. The  loss  of  it  is  not  altogether  without 
its  valuable  lesson:  it  shows  us  the  historical 
fact  that  early  Christianity  did  not  prize  very 
highly  such  study  of  the  Bible  Faith;  much  less 
was  there  any  serious  Bibliolatry.^ 

Another  of  the  best  services  done  for  us  by 
Origen's  construction  of  this  great  Sixfold  work 

>  See  J.  A,  Picton's  Man  and  the  Bible,  p.  155. 


By  the  Early  Christians  99 

is  its  clear  evidence  that  the  meaning  of  the  Old 
Testament  writings  was  far,  very  far,  from  being 
a  fixed  thing  to  which  anybody  might  appeal  as 
giving  a  definite  utterance  of  the  laws  of  God. 
Origen  may  or  may  not  have  recognised  how  he 
was  showing  us  a  vivid  picture  of  the  great 
variety  of  opinions  held  in  his  time  concerning 
the  actual  utterances  of  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
ture; but  the  criticivSm  of  the  great  Alexandrian 
father  was  thus  a  distinct  and  autographic 
declaration  of  the  facts.  It  shows  that  uni- 
formity of  "Canon"  was  non-existent  in  the 
time  of  Origen. 

3.  The  Sequel:  Jerome's  Development  of 
AN  Orthodox  Canonic  Text 

We  can  go  farther  still,  for  a  mass  of  evidence 
tells  us  that  about  300  a.d.  there  were  at  least 
three,  and  probably  five,  distinctly  different 
forms  of  the  Greek  text  actually  ''Authorised"; 
that  is  to  say,  each  of  these  was  officially  used 
in  one  or  other  of  the  different  great  archiepis- 
copal  provinces.  It  is  curious  that  this  is  re- 
corded by  Jerome,  living  331-420  a.d.,  in  a  letter 
of  his  to  a  scholar  called  Rufinus,  whom  he 
sorely  disliked.  The  passage  tells  of  this  re- 
markable variety  of  official  Greek  versions,  all  of 
them  orthodox ;  and  it  gives  us  also  opportunity 
to  see  at  close  distance  the  temper  of  Jerome, 


100  Old  Testament  Criticism 

this  other  indubitably  famous  student — and 
shall  we  not  say  critic? — of  the  Old  Testament. 
Jerome's  words  which  we  quote  are  in  a  letter 
attacking  his  quondam  friend  Rufinus  on  the 
ground  that  the  latter  has  defended  the  old 
master  Origen;  while  Jerome  purposes  to  hold 
that  master  up  for  condemn::tion  as  a  father  and 
very  fountain  of  heresy.  Such  is  the  fate  that 
so  often  befalls  the  devoted  workman  and  keen 
thinker  like  Origen.  Jerome  credits  Origen, 
indeed,  with  having  been  a  great  student  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  a  man  whose  works  are 
worthy  to  be  translated  from  their  original 
Greek  into  Jerome's  own  Latin  tongue.  But 
then  he  describes  the  Hexapla's  exhibition  and 
evidence  of  the  variety  of  Jewish  versions ;  and 
he  bewails  this  with  some  suggestion  that  Origen 
is  to  blame  for  the  variety.  He  even  accuses 
Origen  of  vitiating  the  Greek  by  mixing  to- 
gether various  sources  and  making  a  new  text 
that  would  please  himself. 

The  passage  has  become  classic ;  and  we  might 
well  give  it  in  full,  but  space  forbids.  The 
most  valuable  point  in  it  is  Jerome's  testimony 
to  the  currency  in  his  time  of  no  less  than  ten 
or  more  distinct  forms  of  the  Old  Testament — • 
viz.:  (i.)  the  Hebrew;  then  (ii.  to  iv.)  the  official 
Greek  texts  of  the  three  great  provinces — Asia, 
Palestine,  Egypt;  also  (v.)  the  old  Latin  text, 
or,  indeed  (vi.),  more  than  one  such;  also  (vii., 


By  the  Early  Christians  loi 

viii.,  ix.,  and  x.)  the  four  Greek  texts  shown  in 
Origen's  Hexapla;  and,  finally  (xi.),  Jerome's 
own  new  Latin  text,  which  he  claimed  to  have 
made  directly  from  the  Hebrew.  This  last  is 
what  has  come,  in  altered  form,  to  be  called  the 
"Vulgate." 

Here,  then,  was  liberty  in  interpretation  and 
the  possibility  of  healthy  progress  at  the  very 
time  when  Jerome  was  trying  to  fix  an  iron  rule 
or  Canon,  and  was  wishing  there  were  only  one 
absolutely  authoritative  text!  It  is  a  remark- 
able fact  that  this  liberty  and  this  critical  free- 
dom were  used  by  the  very  men  who  were  doing 
their  utmost  to  compel  uniformity  of  opinions 
on  religious  matters  throughout  the  whole  of 
Christendom.  Jerome's  new  Latin  version  was 
an  effort  to  condemn  all  else.  For  his  whole 
letter  from  which  we  have  quoted  is  an  attack 
on  Origen  for  heresy,  or,  rather,  for  many 
heresies;  and  it  is  right  to  remark  that  the  long, 
weary  letter,  with  its  snarls  and  quibbles,  is 
not  very  savoury  reading.  No  wonder  that  Har- 
nack  says  very  strong  things  in  condemnation 
of  Jerome,  a  man  commonly  exalted  by  tradition 
to  great  heights  of  praise.  Harnack's  words  are : 
''Jerome's  dream  of  being  at  once  a  pillar  of 
the  Church  and  a  theologian  like  Origen  faded 
away.  He  preferred  to  remain  a  pillar,  and  to 
forsake  Origen.  After  this  defection,  along  with 
betrayal   of   his   friend   Rufinus   [in   the   letter 


102  Old  Testament  Criticism 

named  above],  Jerome  became  the  Father  of 
'  Ecclesiastical  Science. '  And  in  a  certain  sense 
he  is  still  typical  of  this  'Science.'  It  lives  on 
fragments  of  the  wisdom  of  the  men  whom  it  has 
called  heretics.  It  always  accepts  just  so  much 
that  is  new  from  these  men  as  the  circum- 
stances of  the  times  will  allow,  and  it  holds  fast 
to  as  much  of  what  is  old  as  can  be  done  with 
decency.  .  .  .  There  is  one  question  that  is 
never  found  in  its  catechism — namely,  'What 
is  the  historical  truth? '  That  was  the  '  Science' 
of  Jerome."^  This  severe  judgment  sums  up 
well  the  situation  of  Old  Testament  criticism 
four  centuries  after  the  birth  of  Christianity. 
Another  first-rank  leader  in  the  study  of  Christ- 
ian history,  Professor  Hase,  of  Jena,  has  put 
it  thus:  "The  Empire's  adoption  of  the  Church 
meant  its  eternal  strong  unity,  which  now 
proceeded  naturally  to  enforce  internal  unity.  "^ 
From  this  time  onwards — 400  a.d. — there  was 
no  official  sufferance  of  criticism  in  the  Church 
before  the  Reformation;  we  have  to  turn  else- 
where to  find  any  encouragement  of  thought- 
fulness  and  of  Old  Testament  scholarship. 

As  we  pass  forward,  leaving  this  wintry 
negation,  steriHty,  and  death,  let  us  gather  in  a 
simple  picture  of  few  lines  the  substance  of  the 
treatment  of  the  Old  Testament,  both  critical 

1  See  Harnack's  History  of  Doctruie,  ii.,  p.  472. 

2  See  Hase,  Church  History,  ninth  ed.,  p.  124. 


By  the  Early  Christians  103 

and  uncritical,  in  the  first  four  hundred  years 
of  Christian  Hfe.  The  story  needs  to  be  told 
plainly,  for  there  has  been  many  an  effort  to 
give  glory  to  those  days  that  really  deserve 
very  little  of  it.  Yet  we  are  bound  to  speak 
carefully  and  calmly;  for  there  is  danger  cer- 
tainly of  depreciating  the  value  of  such  days 
and  men  through  natural  reaction  against  the 
estimates  that  have  been  too  high,  and  also 
through  the  long  distance  of  that  age  from  ours, 
which  makes  us  scarcely  able  to  understand  the 
conditions  of  the  times.  The  whole  course  of 
movement,  in  brief,  was  this: 

(i.)  In  the  earliest  Christian  times  all  used 
a  freedom  of  treatment  of  the  old  writings  quite 
as  generous  as  that  which  we  have  seen  existing 
constantly  in  Judaism. 

(ii.)  But  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century 
there  arose — for  notable  reasons,  antagonistic, 
economic,  ecclesiastic,  and  later  on  also  imperial 
— the  sense  that  the  new  organisation  of  the 
Christians  must  have  a  Canon  or  rule  by  which 
to  test  all  who  would  enter  the  limits  of  the 
Fellowship. 

(iii.)  The  next  stage  in  the  canon-making 
process  was  naturally  the  effort  to  secure  a 
correct  form  of  the  Canon;  and  here,  among  the 
many  who  lent  strength  to  the  task,  the  greatest 
by  far  was  Origen  in  his  criticism  of  the  Hebrew 
and  Jewish  literature.     Then  followed  Jerome 


104  Old  Testament  Criticism 

with  his  effort  to  put  the  great  Canon  of  Old 
and  Nev/  Testaments  into  a  good  Latin  dress. 

(iv.)  In  those  days  the  Canon  came  to  be 
revered  and  ahiiost  worshipped  as  a  dreadful 
rod  for  beating  all  who  came  in  any  way  short 
of  agreement  with  it.  And  this  came  about 
because,  alas,  the  heathen  Rom.an  Empire — 
or  shall  we  say  simply,  the  non-Christian  and 
un- Christian  Roman  Empire — had  adopted 
Christianity  to  use  it  for  political  purposes.  The 
military  force  of  the  Roman  Government,  hard, 
unspiritual,  and  material,  was  determined  to 
compel  the  Christian  organisation  and  all  Christ- 
ian souls  within  it  to  do  exactly  what  the 
emperor  commanded. 

(v.)  The  outcome  of  the  story  was  that 
Jerome's  Latin  translation  was  set  up  as  the 
very  law  of  God  on  earth ;  and  now  all  criticism 
of  the  Old  Testament  within  the  Roman- 
Christian  Empire  was  at  an  end.  And  ^  yet, 
strange  but  true,  while  no  betterment  dared  be 
undertaken,  and  while  no  truly  critical  eye  or 
hand  dared  now  to  meddle  with  the  sacred 
words  of  this  so-called  ''Vulgate"  or  text  for 
the  common  use,  yet  careless  men  did  their 
careless  work  as  copyists  or  as  fanciful  adorners, 
and  they  often  altered  the  text  of  Jerome  griev- 
ously. Popes  lent  their  imprimatur  to  such 
debasements  of  the  would-be-holy  Latin  words ; 
which,    soon    afterwards,    other   popes   had   to 


By  the  Early  Christians  105 

denounce  as  contrary  to  the  will  of  God. 
Jerome's  blows  at  Origen  were  deadly  blows 
at  thinking  and  life;  the  author  of  the  Vulgate 
stunned  Old  Testament  study  for  a  thousand 
years. 

(vi.)  An  Augustine  could  quote  this  or  that 
passage  without  any  of  the  deep  respect  due 
by  the  student.  He  and  his  comrades  through 
the  ages  of  Roman  Christianity  had  no  sense 
of  the  real  meaning  and  value  of  a  document 
coming  from  an  age  other  than  their  own.  Aug- 
ustine's superficial  expositions  and  his  allegorical 
deductions  headed  the  procession,  ten  centuries 
long,  of  similar  uncritical  use  of  the  noble  old 
Scriptures.  Deliverance  came  at  length  from 
a  quarter  that  seems  strange,  and  that  yet  was 
very  naturally  the  region  whence  light  should 
come;  it  was  the  Jews  who  taught  the  world 
once  again  to  read  historically  their  Old  Testa- 
ment. We  turn  to  some  brief  sight  of  their 
literary  work  through  the  centuries. 


Chapter  V 

Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  among 
Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis 

I.     From  the   First  Century  to  the 
Reformation 

IT  is  possible  to  consult  concerning  this  im- 
portant field  the  guidance  of  thoroughly 
scholarly  men  among  the  Jews  themselves. 
For  the  student  of  the  religious  ways  of  Judaism, 
for  him  especially  who  seeks  to  know  the  labours 
of  the  Rabbis  in  the  synagogue,  their  cultivation 
of  the  inward  life  by  sermons,  expositions,  and 
devout  meditations,  and  for  all  who  would 
understand  Jewish  instruction  of  youth,  the 
classic  teacher  is  Leopold  Zunz,  also  called 
Yom-Tob  Lippmann,  who  was  born  at  Detmold 
in  1794,  and  died  in  Berlin  in  1886,  after  a  long 
and  active  professional  life.  He  was  truly  a 
founder  of  modern  Jewish  literary  science.  In 
1832  he  published  an  octavo  volume  of  some 
five  hundred  pages,  entitled  Gottesdienstliche 
Vortrdge  der  Juden,  historisch  entwickelt,  which 
means,  being  translated,  Jewish  Worship-Lilera- 
106 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        107 

tare  Examined  Historically.  Since  its  appear- 
ance ever}^  student  of  matters  bearing  on  the 
wide  range  of  Jewish  and  Christian  thought 
has  been  deeply  indebted  to  the  book.  We  shall 
quote  presently  from  its  pages. 

Further,  in  the  magnificent  History  of  the 
Jews,  written  by  Professor  H.  Graetz  of  Breslau 
(born  1817,  died  1891),  we  have  a  most  careful, 
sympathetic,  and  in  the  true  sense  scientific 
exposition  of  Judaism,  at  least  from  the  Macca- 
bean  times  onward.  The  earlier  story  is  handled 
far  too  briefly  in  comparison  with  the  rich 
fulness  of  story  that  is  told  concerning  200  B.C. 
onwards,  almost  to  our  own  day.  This  work 
also  will  guide  us  well. 

But,  finally,  the  prince  of  all  students  of 
Judaism  and  Christianity,  and  indeed  of  all 
essential  religion,  was  Baruch  or  Benedict  de 
Spinoza  of  Amsterdam  (born  1632,  died  1677). 
He  left  us  in  his  famous  "Theological  and 
Political  Treatise"  the  foundation  plans  for 
our  modern  criticism,  and  also  invaluable  records 
of  the  word  of  genuine  Jewish  critics  of  the 
Middle  Ages.  We  seek,  then,  to  give  a  very 
brief  account  of  the  story  as  it  may  be  learned 
under  the  guidance  of  these  three  teachers  just 
named — Zunz,  Graetz,  and  Spinoza.  We  need 
not  at  every  point  refer  to  the  exact  words  of 
those  teachers,  but  will  rather  set  the  whole 
in  summary  of  our  own. 


io8  Old  Testament  Criticism 

2.     The  Story  of  Jewish  Use  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  Seen   in  their 
Synagogal  Expositions 

Our  plan  shall  be  to  study  carefully  the 
treatises  of  the  two  noted  Jews  whom  we  have 
named,  Zunz  and  Spinoza;  and  to  supplement 
what  we  learn  from  these  by  use  of  Graetz, 
obtaining  from  this  last-named  especially  the 
general  outlines  of  movement.  We  begin  with 
Zunz,  although  he  is  much  later  in  time  than 
Spinoza,  because  Zunz's  work  is  in  the  form  of  a 
history  of  the  matter  from  early  days  until  now. 
He  writes  really  the  story  of  the  thinking  of  the 
Jews  in  their  religious  worship  and  concerning 
it  during  all  the  ages  since  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
450  B.C.  We  do  not  need  to  go  so  far  back  with 
him,  but  shall  follow  his  guidance  from  about 
the  time  of  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  in   70  a.d. 

Let  us  describe  the  main  points  in  Zunz's 
historical  account,  and  we  shall  see  how  they 
furnish  the  story  of  Jewish  criticism  of  the  Old 
Testament.  He  arranges  the  course  of  events 
and  of  mental  n^ovements  in  several  ways: 

I.  First,  he  sets  forth  the  series  of  great 
events — viz.,  the  Cessation  of  the  Prophetic 
Activity,  about  500  B.C.;  then,  the  Work  of  the 
Great  Fellowship  of  the  Elders — i.e.,  the  so- 
called  Great  Synagogue  of  the  times  from  Nehe- 
miah, 450  B.C.,  on  to  I  a.d.  or  later;  next,  the 


M.1>C  XXXIt 


Benedictus   di:  Spikoza.  ^ 

Cm   nattira.Dens.rerian  cui  cog-nitiis   ordo  ,  ■  ■    ^ 

Hoc  Spinofa  ftatu  coiiipiciendus    erat.  ;  /  ' 

ExpreHere  viri  faciem.leci  pm^ere  ineutem  — ..-  -.;:: 

Zeiixidis   artirices    non  valwere  mantis.  --...-= 

Ilia   Vie'el      fcriptis  :  ilijc  rublimia   tractat:  ■- 

Hiuicquicunq^uecupis  nofcerelcripta  leg-e  .  -^^ 


no  Old  Testament  Criticism 

Emancipation  from  the  vSyrian  Oppression,  i8o 
B.C. ;  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem,  70  a.d.  ;  the  Formation 
of  the  Mishna  or  Enlarged  Mosaic  Laws  of 
Conduct,  200  A.D.;  the  Compilation  of  the 
Gemara,  or  further  enlargement  of  the  Jewish 
Codes,  500  A.D.;  the  Rise  of  Arab  Scientific 
Activity,  700  a.d.  onward;  the  Decay  of  Tra- 
dition; and,  finally,  the  Transference  of  the 
Jewish  Educational  Centres  to  Europe,  and  the 
Close  of  the  Babylonian  Universities,  1000  a.d. 
2.  Then  our  guide  describes  all  in  a  series 
of  dated  periods,  thus:  from  Ezra  to  the  Writer 
of  Chronicles,  200  years  (450-250  B.C.) ;  from  the 
Chronicler  to  the  Restoration  of  the  Sanhedrin 
— i.e.,  the  Directing  Council  of  Elders,  over 
100  years  (250-150);  thence,  until  the  Destruc- 
tion of  the  Temple,  220  years  (150  B.C.-70  a.d.)  ; 
from  that  Catastrophe  until  the  Formation 
of  the  Mishna,  or  Second  Ethical  Law,  250 
years  (70-320  a.d.);  from  the  Mishna  until  the 
Completion  of  the  Gemara,  or  Supplementary 
Ethical  Law,  250  years  (320-570) ;  from  the 
Gemara  to  the  new  activity  of  the  Gaonim  (the 
"exalted  ones"),  or  Leaders  of  the  Universities 
of  Babylon,  270  years  (570-840) ;  from  the 
Bloom  of  those  Universities  to  the  Versifying 
Schools  of  Rabbi  Sherira  and  Rabbi  Kallir, 
230  years  (840-1070  a.d.).  About  this  last  date 
the  centre  of  Jewish  study  left  the  Euphrates 
and   Palestine,    and  migrated   to   Europe:   the 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        1 1 1 

Babylonian  lines  of  work  finding  their  home  and 
congenial  environment  in  Spain,  by  way  of  the 
Arabs  and  Morocco;  while  the  Palestinian 
influences  flowed  rather  by  way  of  Greece  to 
Italy  and  Germany. 

3.  Now  we  reach  Zunz's  list  of  great  schools 
that  arose  successively,  and  which  handled 
variously  the  critical  examination  and  the  public 
exposition  of  the  older  Jewish  literature.  These 
schools  were  as  follows: 

We  need  not  enumerate  his  list  of  workers 
previous  to  the  catastrophe  of  the  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem, for  we  have  already  considered  that  in  our 
pages  above.  It  was  about  the  year  70  a.d.,  the 
year  of  the  awful  catastrophe,  that  the  sad 
separation  between  Jewish  and  Christian  think- 
ing, study,  and  life  came  about.  Few  words 
are  here  necessary  concerning  the  causes  of  that 
separation  and  antagonism.  In  briefest  sum- 
mary, they  were  somewhat  as  follows:  There 
was  not  a  deep  antagonism  between  Jesus' 
own  message  and  the  orthodox  Mosaic  doctrine ; 
but  ere  long  deep  cause  for  antagonism  did 
arise.  The  early  followers  of  Jesus  preached 
that  he  lived  beyond  the  grave,  and  was  the 
Lord — i.e.,  lahweh,  the  great  Hebrew  national 
Deit}^,  and  the  Christ — i.e.,  Anointed.  Here  were 
at  once  dread  heresies,  and  thus  arose  bitter 
antagonism  between  the  Jews  and  the  follow- 
ers of  this  Anointed  lahweh.     This  anta";onism 


112  Old  Testament  Criticism 

was  speedily  multiplied  twofold  when  the  early 
missionary  Paul  preached  that  the  helpful  Gos- 
pel of  Jesus  and  the  acceptance  of  his  Lord- 
ship were  just  what  all  other  peoples  needed 
as  well  as  did  the  Jews.  Here,  was  indeed, 
a  breaking  down  of  all  the  old  Mosaic  Faith 
concerning  circumcised  Jewry;  no  wonder  that 
there  grew  an  antagonism  more  bitter  than 
ever.  And  this  was  not  yet  all;  for  speedily 
the  new  Christ  theory  was  extended  to  signify 
that  every  follower  of  Jesus  actually  possessed 
the  Christ  within  himself.  Surely  here  was  to  the 
orthodox  Jew,  the  Scribe,  the  Torah  student, 
the  stern  dissenting  Pharisee,  a  heresy  that  had 
to  be  fought  to  the  bitterest  end.  We  must 
consider  that  at  this  very  time  orthodox  Judaism 
was  convulsed  by  the  terrible  ruin  brought  upon 
their  sacred  capital,  Jerusalem,  by  Titus  with 
his  Roman  legions,  which  destroyed  that  city  in 
70  A.D.  Surely  they  must  have  thought  all"  this 
evil  a  sign  that  their  God  was  angry  over  such 
gross  departures  from  the  ancient  Mosaic  faith. 
In  any  case,  the  feud  was  bitter  to  the  extreme; 
and  ere  many  years  passed  the  most  natural 
consequence  was  a  jealous  effort  to  ''hedge 
round  the  ancient  Doctrine, "  as  the  famous  tract 
on  the  ''Sayings  of  the  Hebrew  Fathers"  had 
counselled ;  and  how  better  could  the  Jewish 
scholars  "hedge"  than  by  declaring  clearly  just 
what  were  the  contents  of  their  Sacred  Writings. 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        113 

Thus  a  Jewish  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  made  imperative  by  the  rise  of  Christianity. 
Hence  many  decisions  concerning  Scripture  were 
made  by  the  so-cahed  Council  of  Jabne,  or 
Jamnia,  a  town  near  the  coast  some  thirty  miles 
west  of  Jerusalem.  When  Jerusalem  was  in 
the  throes  of  ruin,  the  Sanhedrin  left  the  city 
and  met  for  a  long  time  thereafter  at  this  town 
of  Jabne.  No  particular  council  was  held  there 
to  settle  the  matter  of  an  Old  Testament  canon ; 
but  in  the  meetings  of  the  Sanhedrin  during  the 
years  just  before  and  just  after  100  a.d.  miuch 
study  was  devoted  to  the  question  of  the  right 
of  this  book  and  that  to  be  in  the  sacred  collec- 
tion. So,  for  example,  we  learn  that,  under  the 
presidency  of  Eleasar,  the  son  of  Asariah,  it 
was  finally  decided  concerning  Ecclesiastes  and 
the  Song  of  Songs,  two  somewhat  doubtful 
writings,  that  these  did  possess  the  proper 
qualities,  and  must  be  included  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible.  Put  here  was  the  end  of  discussion  on 
the  actual  limits  of  the  sacred  list  considered 
simply  as  a  precious  collection.  Thus  a  Jewish 
Canon  was  finally  determined  in  or  near  100 
A.D.  And  yet  criticism  and  freedom  of  thought 
went  on  as  busily  as  ever. 

(a)  For,  more  especiall}^,  the  directions  for 
life  and  its  duties  found  written  in  the  Mosaic 
codes  had  always  been  felt  to  be  quite  insufficient 
and  the  question  had  to  arise,  "Who  shall  tell 


114  Old  Testament  Criticism 

us  further  what  it  is  right  to  do?"  Hence  con- 
troversy became  abundant  within  the  ranks  of 
the  noted  elders  themselves.  Those  who  were 
closely  attached  to  the  Government,  and  who 
were  called  ''Sadducees,"  after  Sadoc,  the  Da- 
vidic  chief  priest,  refused  to  give  to  any  writings 
outside  the  Torah  such  respect  as  was  given 
to  the  Moses-books;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Pharisees,  or  Dissenters,^  believed  in  the 
ever-present  inspiration  of  God  in  the  minds 
of  his  people.  The  latter  refused  to  submit  to 
governmental  commands  as  if  these  had  God's 
authority;  but  they  delighted  in  seeing  the 
growth  in  scholarly  hands  of  a  large  new  body 
of  ethical  opinion  and  regulation.  And  this 
Pharisee  faith  gained  the  day  in  the  end;  the 
enlarged  ethical  opinions  and  regulations  that 
were  worked  out  in  the  councils  of  elders  were 
ere  long  honoured  with  the  name  of  "The 
Second  Mosaic  Doctrine, "  or  "  Mishnah. "  ^  The 
continuous  body  of  greatly  esteemed  elders  who 
wrought  out  these  extensions  were  called  "The 
Tannaim,"  or  Mishnah-Makers. 

Here,  then,  was  direct  authorisation  given  by 
orthodox  Jewish  opinion  to  a  very  vital  criticism 

1  The  word  "Pharisee"  meant  literally  "separatist"; 
the  earnest  men  so-called  were  especially  opposed  to 
the  Prince's  and  Government's  assumption  of  hier- 
archical office.  The  Pharisee  was  simply  and  literally 
an  anti-State-Church-man. 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        115 

of  the  most  important  and  most  serious  parts 
of  the  very  Pentateuch  itself.  Surely  the  men 
who  felt  the  Decalogue  to  be  insufficient,  who 
thought  out  supplementations  of  it,  and  who 
regarded  these  as  God's  mind,  deserved  the 
name  of  Old  Testament  critics.  The  most 
sacred  rules  for  moral  life  were  judged  and  found 
insufficient;  new  rules  were  thotight  out,  criti- 
cised, and  adopted. 

We  have  seen  above  how  Zunz  sets  the  epoch 
of  these  men's  activity  as  lasting  down  to  about 
320  A.D.  Not  a  few  of  them  worked  so  earnestly 
and  well  that  their  names  endure  in  wide  honour 
to  this  day.  We  have  named  above  Eleasar,  son 
of  Asariah ;  before  him  were  such  critics  as  Sham- 
mai,  Hillel,  and  Gamaliel  I.,  Paul's  teacher  of 
about  the  middle  of  the  first  centur}^;  Gamaliel 
II.,  grandson  of  the  former  Gamaliel,  living 
about  100  A.D.;  then  the  very  famous  Akiba,  of 
date  no  to  130  a.d.;  and  later  the  noted  Judah 
the  Prince,  living  about  150  to  200  a.d.  This 
last  is  counted  generally  the  first  who  edited 
the  Mishnah;  he  at  least  prepared  a  very  early 
edition  of  it  in  written  form.  Such  was  the 
Tannaite  school  of  early  Jewish  criticism  in  the 
first  and  second  centuries  of  our  era.  It  has 
been  imperative  to  describe  at  length  the  rise 
of  this  scholarly  criticism,  especially  since,  un- 
fortunately, it  was  antagonistic  to  Christianity. 

(b)  Criticism  within  Judaism  took  now  a  new 


ii6  Old  Testament  Criticism 

peculiar  direction.  Jewish  scholars  gave  them- 
selves for  ages,  for  some  250  years  indeed,  to 
the  exposition  of  this  Second  Law;  criticism  of 
the  Mishnah  pushed  criticism  of  the  actual  Bible 
aside.  The  newer  scholars  counted  the  text 
of  the  Biblical  Hebrew  books  altogether  too 
sacred  to  be  made  la.rgely  a  subject  of  discussion ; 
they  read  it  aloud  in  their  synagogal  worship 
without  remark,  as  we  read  lessons  now.  Cer- 
tainly they  took  "texts"  from  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  as  bases  for  their  expositions  of  the 
Mishnah;  but  these  "texts"  were  always  fanci- 
fully used,  and  thus  the  new  criticism  treated 
these  scriptural  texts  with  small  respect.  The 
expositions  were  given  in  the  synagogues  and 
other  places  of  assembly,  and  the  expounders 
were  called  "Amoraim"  — i.  e.,  simply  "Speak- 
ers." There  was  a  long  list  of  them,  among 
whom  the  most  commonly  named  is  Tanchuma, 
of  about  425  A.D.,  whose  name  became  connected 
with  one  of  the  more  noted  commentaries  upon 
the  Mosaic  Doctrine.  It  was  in  the  days  of  these 
Amoraim  that  three  distinguished  universities  for 
such  Jewish  studies  arose:  in  Babylon,  at  Sura 
and  Pumbeditha ;  and  also  in  Palestine  at  Tibe- 
rias on  the  western  shore  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee. 
(c)  It  was  inevitable  that  such  a  method  of 
mere  exposition  of  Mishnah,  a  thing  that  was 
rightly  or  wrongly  said  to  be  of  only  secondary 
importance,  should  in  course  of  time  degenerate 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        117 

into  great  timidity,  and  even  into  slavish  repe- 
titions. But  add  to  this  the  constant  and  bitter 
terror  wherein  every  Jew  Hved,  whether  he 
were  a  scholar  or  a  hand- worker,  during  t^ose 
ages  from  400  to  600  a.d.  Then  the  so-called 
Christian  Church  system  had  become  a  public 
instrument  and  pitiable  tool  of  the  diseased 
and  m.oribund,  morally  degenerate  and  decaying 
Roman  Empire;  and  all  the  jealousies  of  such 
a  condition  fell  in  fierce  strokes  upon  the  Jews, 
those  rival  claimants  for  the  successorship  of 
the  patriarchs,  the  prophets,  and  the  saints  of 
the  Old  Testament  ages.  We  may  quote  Zunz 
here  (p.  341):  ''In  this  period  of  two  hundred 
years  the  Sabbath  ministrations  and  preaching 
among  the  Jews  of  Persia  and  Palestine  were 
not  regularly  continued;  and  the  cause  must  be 
found  in  the  wars  and  the  persecutions  of  the 
time."  He  describes  one  of  the  productions  of 
the  time,  the  so-called  "Midrash"  or  comment- 
ary on  ''LaiTientations,"  as  full  of  weeping  for 
the  nation,  with  interwoven  narratives  of  the  sad 
fortunes  of  the  Jews,  their  persecutions  by  the 
Romans  who  were  now  all  called  Christians, 
and  the  mockery  of  them  in  the  Roman  theatres. 
The  title  of  Amoraim  was  no  longer  given,  for 
the  teachers  had  grown  too  timid  even  towards 
their  God  and  his  inspirations;  they  called 
themselves  only  ''Seboraim" — i.e.,  "Holders 
of  Opinions."     They  would  not  go  so  far  as  to 


ii8  Old  Testament  Criticism 

say,  ''Thus  and  thus  hath  God  said";  they  only 
murmured  timidly,  "We  think  that  probably 
such  and  such  is  the  mind  of  God. " 

And  yet  all  of  this  was  on  the  eve  of  a  revival 
of  strength;  and  the  notes  of  its  coming  are  to 
be  seen  in  a  mass  of  careful  studies,  begun  about 
this  time,  concerning  the  exact  wording  of  the 
text  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  These  studies 
are  known  as  the  "  Masorah, "  and  those  engaged 
in  it  were  the  Masoretes,  or  Traditionalists, 
for  the  word  Masorah  means  "tradition. "  The 
Masoretes  sought,  even  amid  the  sweat  of  sorrow 
and  fear,  to  know  and  secure  the  exactly  correct 
spelling  of  every  word  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
exactly  correct  pronunciation  of  all  in  the 
Sabbatic  readings  in  synagogal  worship.  It 
was  then,  therefore,  that  what  are  called  the 
Hebrew  "vowel-signs"^  were  invented.  The  ex- 
positions of  those  days,  called  "Hagada" — i.  e., 
"Setting  forth,"  were  feeble  efforts  to  read- the 
sad  experiences  of  the  times  into  the  ancient 
sacred  text;  but  weakness  came  just  before 
revival.  The  twilight  of  dawn  shone  about 
the  timid  learning  of  the  Seboraim. 

1  Every  learner  of  Hebrew  knows  that  the  language 
has  in  itself  no  letters  representing  vowels.  The  proper 
pronunciation  of  words  used  to  be  handed  on  by  mem- 
ory, as  in  the  case  of  English.  At  the  time  under  con- 
sideration a  set  of  signs  were  invented  for  the  guidance 
of  those  learning  to  read  the  lessons  in  worship. 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        119 

(d)  While  the  timid  Seboraim  were  rendering 
their  simple  service,  there  was  coming  into 
blossom  and  fine  fruit  the  work  of  the  Univer- 
sities of  Babylon  and  Palestine,  already  named. 
A  long  list  of  notable  teachers  led  the  studies  of 
hosts  of  young  men  there;  those  leaders  were 
called  the  "Gaonim" — i.  e.,  ''Exalted  Ones," 
and  not  at  all  unworthily  were  they  so  called. 
Let  us  quote  in  summary  Zunz's  valuable  ac- 
count of  the  activity  of  the  schools  in  Babylon, 
as  given  on  pp.  308  f.  of  his  work.  In  the  Acad- 
emies of  Babylon,  Halacha  was  chiefly  studied. 
("Halacha"  means  the  customary  and  proper 
Rule  of  Life.)  There  was  often  an  over-refine- 
ment, indeed,  that  has  been  greatly  blamed. 
Narrative  or  exposition  (Hagada)  was  less 
studied  in  the  earlier  generations  of  the  period ; 
but  later  on  its  ethical  and  historical  possibilities 
were  understood  and  searched  out.  From 
about  the  year  800  a.d.  scientific  investigations 
claimed  much  attention:  the  hrst  lexicons  were 
prepared;  Arabic  astronomy  and  medicine  were 
cultivated;  translations  from  Arabic,  and  es- 
pecially studies  in  theology,  grammar,  and 
exegesis,  were  published.  Mental  activity  was 
greatly  influenced  and  nourished  by  the  rich 
literature  of  the  Arab  schools,  and  this  led  Jews 
in  all  other  Islamic  lands  into  similar  activity. 
Especially  in  North  Africa,  and  in  Andalusia 
in  southern  Spain,  Jews  sought  and  gained  large 


120  Old  Testament  Criticism 

culture.  All  these  movements  radiated  from 
the  two  Babylonian  Universities;  while  the 
Palestinian  Academy  tended  to  cultivation  of 
specially  Jewish  matters,  and  it  was  in  the  latter 
that  the  greatest  service  was  rendered  to  the 
Masoretic  study  of  the  wording  of  the  sacred 
text  which  we  have  just  mentioned. 

Of  the  Gaons  there  were  in  all  a  good  hundred, 
the  most  famous  of  whom  by  far  was  Saadia, 
the  son  of  Joseph  of  Fay  yum,  born  in  Egypt  in 
892  A.D.,  and  President  in  the  Sura  University 
at  the  time  of  his  death  in  942  a.d.  He  is  often 
called  the  founder  of  the  scientific  activities 
of  Judaism.  When  he  was  made  Gaon  in  928 
A.D.  his  University  entered  upon  a  period  of 
great  brilliancy,  as  is  recorded  by  Professor 
Bacher  of  Budapest.  The  works  of  Gaon 
Saadia  are  being  published,  and  chief  among 
them  is  his  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
into  Arabic.  One  of  his  most  earnest  efforts 
was  to  combat  Karaism,  a  doctrine  that  had 
risen  among  his  fellow  Jews  as  a  rebellion  against 
all  traditionalism.  The  Karaites  claimed,  like 
the  old  Sadducees,  that  only  the  actual  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  should  be  followed, 
and  that  all  Mishnaic  and  similar  teaching  is 
mischievous.  Very  natural  it  was  that  the 
reviving  Judaism,  in  the  person  and  work  of 
Saadia  and  his  comrades,  should  seek  to  uphold 
its  traditional  custom  of  making  or  criticising 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        121 

Mishnaic  enlargements  of  the  ethics  of  the 
Doctrine  of  Moses;  all  the  more  natural  was 
this  since  that  custom  meant  a  constant  im- 
provement and  enlargement  of  the  older  views. 
The  Karaites  were  the  strictest  traditionalists, 
and  of  the  narrowest  sort  in  their  would-be 
absolute  adherence  to  the  letter  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures. 

(e)  The  greatest  period  of  the  revived  Judaism 
began  when  the  universities  of  the  Far  East  were 
closed  through  the  political  difiPieulties  caused 
by  Islam.  Then  the  Babylonian  scholarship 
found  a  new  home  in  Morocco  and  in  Spain  and 
southern  France,  while  the  Palestinian  scholars 
moved  westward  along  the  northerly  line  through 
Greece,  Italy,  Germany,  and  northern  France. 
Zunz  writes  enthusiastically  of  this  migration, 
this  Light  from  the  East:  "The  sunshine  of  a 
really  Jewish  literature  burst  forth  for  Europe 
in  the  ninth  century."  It  was  not,  however, 
until  the  year  1050  a.d.,  or  thereabouts,  that 
the  close  of  the  eastern  schools  brought  the 
midday  glory  over  the  West. 

The  earMcr  productions  of  this  western  Rer  ais- 
sance  i_i  Judai::"i  were  versified  wise  sayings 
on  all  sorts  of  matters,  but  especially  on  wor- 
ship. These  were  commonly  called  "the  Pints." 
But  ere  lor_g  another  and  far  higher  stage  was 
reached  in  the  philosophical  and  philological 
writings  of  a  host  of  strong  thinkers,   am^ong 


122  Old  Testament  Criticism 

whom  Moses  Maimonides  was  easily  the  prince. 

Ere  we  consider  these  greater  Jews,  let  us 
note  those  who  practised  the  so-called  Kabbala, 
although  a  very  few  words  are  almost  too  much 
for  the  value  of  the  system.  From  the  close 
of  the  twelfth  century,  says  Zunz,  "a  mysticism 
had  arisen,  commonly  called  Kabbala."  We 
had  better  follow  his  characterisation  of  this 
visionary  school  and  call  it  "mysticism, "  so  that 
any  would-be  mystics  of  our  time  may  set 
value  on  the  utterance  and  watch  the  outcome 
of  the  system.  Zunz's  words  are:  "Notably  the 
term  'Kabbala'  means  'tradition,'  something 
handed  down  from  the  past;  nevertheless,  it 
became  the  name  of  a  fancied  philosophy  wherein 
everything  was  in  reality  brand  new.  Every 
author  claimed  tradition  as  the  source  of  his 
own  peculiar  new  ideas."  Such  mysticism 
arose  easily  in  the  dim  dawn  of  the  better  Jewish 
thoughtf ulness ;  it  arises  always,  and  to-day  as 
much  as  ever,  in  similar  half-awakened  circles. 

(/)  The  eleventh  century  was  brilliant  with 
a  galaxy  of  Jewish  scholars.  It  was  then  that 
Aben  Ezra,  in  Spain,  about  1150  a.d.,  wrote 
his  Commentaries  and  his  Grammar ;  the  former 
of  which  was  so  much  trusted  by  his  followers 
in  the  field  that  it  was  printed  at  Bomberg 
in  the  greater  Rabbinical  Bible,  along  with  the 
Aramaic  Targum  or  Interpretation,  and  with 
the  companion  commentary  of  the  scholar  Rabbi 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        123 

Solomon,  son  of  Isaac,  commonly  called  Rashi. 
The  commentaries  of  these  two  men  have  fur- 
nished work  for  generations  of  later  commen- 
tators, for  every  one  has  counted  it  well  to  write 
expositions  and  descriptions  of  what  these  men 
said.  We  shall  presently  have  occasion  to  re- 
turn to  one  of  them,  when  we  examine  what 
Spinoza  did. 

About  a  generation  later  still  (1200  a.d.)  there 
lived  in  Narbonne,  in  France,  three  similar 
students,  Joseph  Kimchi  and  his  two  sons, 
Moses  and  David.  This  last  became  the  most 
noted;  he  introduced  a  new  method  by  laying 
a  careful  grammatical  study  at  the  foundation 
of  his  expositions,  and  thus  he  became  a  powerful 
mover  of  the  study  and  thought  of  the  next 
three  following  centuries,  which  culminated  in 
the  Reformation.  His  teaching  went  far  to 
create  Reuchlin,  the  teacher  of  Luther. 

(g)  But  we  must  go  back  to  the  greatest  by  far 
of  all  the  new  scholars — Moses,  son  of  Maimon, 
born  in  Cordova  1135  a.d.  Concerning  him  we 
may  give  the  sum  of  what  Zunz  writes,  thus:  Be- 
sides him  all  others  fall  into  the  background ;  he 
was  the  first  to  grasp  the  philosophical  and  essen- 
tial value  of  the  record  of  God's  working  as  set 
out  in  the  long  narrative  given  in  Scripture  and 
in  the  Hagada  that  is  based  on  it — the  Midrash 
stories  and  illustrations  produced  in  the  course 
of  the  centuries  from  the  time  of  Nehemiah  and 


124  Old  Testament  Criticism 

Ezra  down  to  the  Middle  Ages.  Maimon  began 
what  may  be  called  the  properly  philosophical 
exposition  of  those  narratives  and  of  the  Mid- 
rashic  or  Hagadic  writings,  as  containing  and 
implying  a  constant  providential  order,  and  as 
therefore  exhibiting  a  great  divine  purpose  and 
control;  this  being  manifest  in  the  life  of  all  men, 
but  especially  in  the  life  of  the  Hebrews  and  the 
Jews.  Maimon  was  signally  one  of  the  bene- 
dictions that  came  to  Europe  through  the  migra- 
tion of  the  Far  Eastern  scholarship  by  way  of 
Arabian  North  Africa  and  Spain.  Indeed  we 
may  count  him  a  signal  illustration  of  the  service 
that  Islam  has  done  for  European  civilisation, 
by  leading  the  Christian  peoples  to  deliverance 
from  the  heathenism  that  had  been  forced  on 
them  in  Rome's  sorry  adoption  of  the  Church. 
And  yet,  although  Maimon  was  born  in  Cordova, 
and  might  have  become  one  of  the  brightest 
and  best  treasured  jewels  in  Spanish  history, 
he  was  very  early  compelled  to  wander  to  other 
lands  to  escape  persecution;  his  later  life  was 
spent  in  Egypt.  Among  his  fellow  Israelites 
his  work  earned  for  him  the  notable  title  of  the 
Second  Moses,  so  profoundly  and  yet  practically 
did  he  learn  and  teach.  As  a  student  or  critic 
of  Scripture  he  is  not  so  directly  notable;  but 
his  indirect  influence  was  immense,  through  his 
philosophical  guidance  of  all  who  were  to  come 
after  him.     Among  his  works  the  best  known 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        125 

and  doubtless  most  influential  is  his  Moreh 
Ncbhochim — i.e.,  The  Teacher  of  Perplexed  Ones. 
An  excellent  sentence  from  this  ' '  Moreh ' '  is 
quoted  by  Dr.  Broyde  in  his  Jeivish  Encyclopcedia 
article:  "The  design  of  this  work  is  to  promote 
the  true  understanding  of  the  real  spirit  of  the 
law,  or  Doctrine  of  Moses,  and  to  guide  those 
religious  persons  who,  while  adhering  to  the 
Doctrine,  have  also  studied  philosophy,  and  who 
arc  embarrassed  by  the  contradictions  between 
the  teachings  of  philosophy  and  the  literal  sense 
of  the  Doctrine."  Evidently  there  had  arisen 
among  those  Jews  of  the  early  Renaissance  the 
same  determination  that  stirred  in  the  soul  of 
Giordano  Bruno  four  hundred  years  later. 

Qi)  From  Maimon  to  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century  Spain  was  constantly  enriched  intel- 
lectually by  a  series  of  Jewish  scholarly  men  and 
their  cultured  supporters,  as  well  as  she  was 
enriched  materially  by  Jewish  industry  of  every 
kind;  such  service  did  Jews  render,  although  all 
the  while  they  were  exposed  to  ill-treatment, 
to  pillage  by  taxation,  and  to  death  by  violence. 
But  the  day  of  serious  parting  of  the  ways  cam.e 
when  Torquemada  commanded  his  king  and 
queen,  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  to  hurl  out 
those  Jewish  enrichers  of  the  nation  for  the  sake 
of  what  that  priest  counted  the  cause  of  God; 
and  in  1492  the  final  mad  edict  of  expulsion  was 
issued.     Thus  Spain  was  bereaved.     Henceforth 


126  Old  Testament  Criticism 

Jewish  scholarship  centred  in  the  northern 
li'ids;  where  in  France  Nicholas  de  Lyra,  of 
about  1300,  studied  the  work  of  Rashi,  and 
taught  his  fellow  Frenchmen  the  value  of  the 
Hebrew  tongue.  Jewish  scholars  expelled  from 
Spain  migrated  also  to  Germany;  and  about 
1500  A.D.  Johann  von  Reuchlin,  the  earliest 
Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Germany,  first  in  In- 
goldstadt,  and  then  in  Tubingen,  devoted  his 
learning  and  his  skill  to  the  defence  of  the  perse- 
cuted Jews  of  Cologne  and  Frankfurt,  ultimately 
and  bravely  carrying  his  plea  in  person  before  his 
friend,  Pope  Leo  X.  Am.ong  Reuchlin's  pupils 
was  his  son-in-law,  Philip  Melanchthon,  the 
comrade  and  theological  guide  of  Martin  Luther; 
and  ere  long  the  great  Reformer  himself  set  about 
the  task  of  learning  Hebrew,  to  the  end  that  he 
might  give  his  countrymen  a  popular  translation 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Graetz  is  not  wrong 
when  he  counts  his  fellow  Jews  as  largely  re- 
sponsible for  the  Reformation.  He  writes, 
vol.  iv.,  p.  452:  "The  Talmud  had  indirectly 
a  great  share  in  awakening  the  slumbering 
forces  [in  Germany].  We  can  boldly  assert 
that  the  war  for  and  against  the  Talmud 
[wherein  Reuchlin  was  its  champion]  aroused 
German  consciousness  and  created  a  public 
opinion,  without  which  the  Reformation  as  well 
as  other  efforts  would  have  died  in  the  hour 
of  their  birth,  or  perhaps  would  never  have  been 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        127 

born  at  all."  In  its  occasion,  then,  the  Refor- 
mation was  really  an  event  in  that  history  of 
Old  Testament  criticism  which  we  are  tracing. 
The  freedom  fought  for  by  the  Reformers  was 
the  same  independence  that  had  been  shown 
by  the  Jews  in  their  enlargement  of  their 
Pentateuch,  and  by  their  production  of  the 
Mishnah  and  its  developments. 

(i)  Yet  only  a  poor  gratitude  was  returned 
to  the  Jews  for  all  this  service.  Through  long 
generations  the  newly-awakened  peoples  of 
north-western  Europe  used  their  independence 
almost  as  cruelly  as  the  southern  nations  had 
used  their  power;  and  from  the  year  1500  on  to 
1800  there  were  three  centuries  of  shameful 
cruelty  towards  the  venerable  owners  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Of  this  Zunz  writes 
sadly,  p.  418:  "Fear  lamed  the  tongue  of  the 
Jewish  preacher,  and  suffering  drove  away  the 
hearers.  Repeated  and  cruel  persecutions  now 
destroyed  every  Jewish  effort  to  rise  with  the 
times,  in  France  and  Germany.  The  Jews  were 
maltreated  by  a  thieving  nobility;  they  were 
hated  by  fanatical  monks,  and  by  a  bloodthirsty  ' 
common  folk.  The  unhappy  Jew  saw  his  most 
sacred  things  dishonoured,  his  synagogues  torn 
down,  his  Talmud  burnt,  the  graves  of  his 
fathers  desecrated,  his  dear  ones  tortured  to 
death.  He  wandered  about,  seeking  refuge; 
so  that  thoughtfulness  was  frozen  and  the  ear 


128  Old  Testament  Criticism 

grew  deaf  to  all  utterance  of  comfort.  Hope 
became  a  silent  look  towards  the  heavens." 
It  is  only  right  to  hear  this  explanation,  by  a 
scholarly  and  most  godly  Jew,  of  the  dulled 
condition  into  which  all  Jewish  life  fell,  whether 
among  scholars  or  others,  as  the  actual  result 
of  the  new  reformed  vigour  among  all  other 
nationalities.  But  time  has  brought  its  healing; 
in  1800  Lessing  could  point  to  Moses  Mendels- 
sohn as,  perhaps,  the  wisest  among  all  the 
thoughtful  men  of  Germany;  and  Lessing's 
wonderful  play,  Nathan  der  Weise,  has  been  a 
gospel  of  rational  treatment  of  Jews,  and  a 
consequent  joy  for  all  who  know  them.  To-day 
the  Jewish  E?icyclopcedia,  in  its  stately  series 
of  twelve  tomes,  filled  with  instruction  written 
^'  by  men  of  all  faiths,  and  purposed  most  wisely 
by  its  generous  patrons  as  a  great  national  and 
religious  library  for  guidance  of  the  younger 
generation,  provides  a  symbol  of  the  present 
thoughtfulness,  the  critical  ability,  and  the  pure 
spirit  of  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  Jewish 
race.  That  Encyclopccdia's  articles  on  Biblical 
subjects  give  always  full  information  on  what 
is  called  the  Rabbinical  views  of  any  question, 
and  then  they  describe  faithfully  the  results  and 
aims  of  the  historico-critical  workmen.  Such 
bright  blossom  and  fruit  on  the  ancient  tree, 
that  had  seemed  so  withered,  might  well  give 
pause  to  us  in  our  common  fancy  that  Judaism 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        129 

is  far  behind  Christianity.  But  the  ancient 
race  had  a  deep  vitality  all  along  the  way;  for 
even  in  the  darker  days  amid  those  three  hundred 
years  after  Luther  the  Jews  produced  the  very 
highest  scientific  Biblical  thought.  We  are  to 
see  this  now  as  we  turn  back  to  watch  an  early, 
hidden,  and  much-maligned  Jewish  critical 
scholar,  Baruch  Spinoza,  whom  the  whole 
world  is  learning  every  day  to  esteem  more 
highly. 

3.  The  Old  Testament  Criticism  of  Baruch 
Spinoza 

We  may  well  call  this  man  the  great  father 
of  all  modern  Old  Testament  criticism;  al- 
though he  was  a  feeble-bodied  lens  polisher 
of  Amsterdam  and  The  Hague,  and  lived  only 
from  1632  to  1677. 

His  epoch-making  work  on  the  matter,  which 
he  called  his  Theological  and  Political  Tract,  was 
published  in  1670.  To  grasp  the  essence  of 
this  little  book  will  be  enough  to  throw  a  flood 
of  light  on  the  merits  of  the  subject,  and  also  on 
the  course  of  all  studious  efforts  thereafter  until 
this  day.  He  sets  out  his  object  at  once  in 
his  sub- title,  where  he  calls  the  essay  "Certain 
attempts  to  show  that  perfect  liberty  to  philo- 
sophise— i.  e.,  to  reason  and  think,  and  to 
speak  accordingly  in  public — is  not  only  com- 


130  Old  Testament  Criticism 

patible  with  devout  piety  and  with  the  peace 
of  the  State;  but,  moreover,  to  take  away  that 
hberty  is  to  destroy  the  pubHc  peace  and  also 
all  real  piet}^  itself.  " 

His  arguments  for  this  proposition  are  drawn 
almost  entirely  from  an  examination  of  the 
history  of  his  own  race,  especially  as  that  is  to 
be  learned  from  their  ancient  sacred  literature, 
and  also  from  their  own  studies  in  it  during 
the  later  centuries.  The  bitter  attacks  that 
have  been  made  on  Spinoza  all  along  the  two 
centuries  since  he  died  have  probably  owed  most 
of  their  virulence  to  the  deep  sense  all  clear- 
sighted men  have  had  of  the  vast  power  of  this 
Theological  and  Political  Tract.  It  shook  the 
orthodoxies  of  Catholic,  of  Jew,  and  of  Protest- 
ant. But  surely  now  the  day  has  arrived 
when  Spinoza  too  shall  come  to  his  own,  and 
shall  be  honoured  as  he  has  always  deserved 
to  be. 

A  few  descriptive  paragraphs  would  not  be 
nearly  so  serviceable  for  showing  the  nature 
of  the  Tract  as  will  be  Spinoza's  own  actual 
summary,  given  in  the  analytical  table  of  con- 
tents, to  which  we  shall  add  here  and  there  a 
word  or  two  of  quotation  from  the  text  itself. 
There  are  twenty  chapters  in  the  booklet,  full 
of  rich  information,  and  all  woven  into  a  strong 
cord  of  reasoning.     Here  is  the  analysis: 

Chapter    i.    is    entitled     "Concerning     Pro- 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        131 

phesving."  Spinoza  defines  this  at  once  in 
these  words:  "Prophesying  or  Revelation  is 
the  sure  knowledge  of  something  revealed  to 
men  from  God."  He  proceeds  to  claim  that 
the  imagination  is  the  seat  of  the  prophet's 
information. 

Clmpter  ii.  is  "Concerning  the  Prophets." 
Here  he  teaches  that  the  utterances  of  the 
Prophets  were  always  thoroughly  fitted  to  the 
imaginative  powers  of  the  people  whom  they 
addressed. 

Chapter  iii.  is  "Concerning  Divine  purpose 
with  the  Hebrews,  and  whether  they  alone  pos- 
sessed the  Prophetic  Gift."  He  concludes  that 
no  nation  can  possibly  be  chosen  out  and  fa- 
voured as  possessors  of  knowledge  or  virtue 
more  than  any  other  nations. 

Chapter  iv.  concerns  "The  Divine  Law." 
In  the  midst  of  the  chapter  stands  this  classic 
passage:  "Only  he  keeps  the  Divine  Law  who 
seeks  to  love  God;  and  that,  because  he  is  ac- 
quainted with  God,  and  knows  that  acquaint- 
ance with  God  and  love  for  Him  are  the  greatest 
Good." 

Chapter  v.  is  entitled  "Concerning  the  reason 
why  Ceremonies  were  appointed  in  olden  days; 
and  of  the  Trustworthiness  of  Scripture  Narra- 
tives— that  is  to  say,  how  and  for  whom  they 
are  necessary."  Here  he  contends  that  cere- 
monial   res:ulations    were    nothing    and    of    no 


132  Old  Testament  Criticism 

service,  save  as  expressions  of  the  nature  of 
the  soul. 

Chapter  vi.  concerns  "Miracles."  He  de- 
scribes some  men  who  "think  that  God  is  never 
doing  anything  so  long  as  nature  moves  for- 
ward in  its  ordinary  course;  and,  vice  versa,  they 
think  that  the  powers  of  nature  are  never  at 
work  so  long  as  God  is  acting.  So,"  says 
Spinoza,  "they  really  believe  in  two  different 
supreme  powers  in  this  world — viz.,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  power  of  God ;  and  on  the  other  hand, 
the  power  of  Natural  Things. " 

Chapter  vii.  reaches  the  central  theme;  it  is 
entitled  "Concerning  Exposition  of  the  Scrip- 
tures." Here  Spinoza  defines  the  true  rule 
of  interpretation,  thus:  Nothing  must  be  im- 
puted to  the  Scriptures  save  what  is  quite 
clearly  derived  therefrom  and  in  detail:  (i)  We 
must  know  the  languages  of  Scripture  and  the 
history  of  these.  (2)  We  must  examine  the 
statements  of  each  book  separately  and  for 
itself,  and  then  arrange  these  together  in  logi- 
cally critical  order.  (3)  Then  we  must  set 
down  exactly  the  history  of  each  book,  as  also 
of  the  circumstances  of  the  author.  Only  after 
all  this  has  been  done  can  we  know  the  mind 
of  the  particular  prophet  who  wrote  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  inspired  him.  All  is  illustrated 
with  a  wealth  of  intimate  knowledge. 

Chapter  viii.  is  headed:  "Herein  is  shown  that 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis        133 

the  Pentateuch,  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges, 
Samuel,  and  Kings,  were  not  written  by  any  of 
the  men  described  in  them."  Then  follows 
investigation  of  each,  to  see  whether  each  had 
several  authors  or  only  one,  and  who  such  au- 
thors could  be.  This  is  perhaps  the  most 
startling  section  of  the  book,  for  here  Spinoza 
criticises  the  theory  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch.  His  plan  is  to  quote  one  of  the 
most  thoughtful  and  esteemed  of  Jewish  Rabbis, 
and  to  make  it  clear  that  this  honoured  teacher 
believed  Moses  did  not  write  those  books  so 
often  attributed  to  him.  The  Rabbi  was 
Aben  Ezra,  of  about  iioo  A.D.  Spinoza  shows 
that,  five  hundred  years  before  himself,  one  of 
the  ablest  of  the  Rabbis  had  denied  that  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch.  He  says:  "Aben  Ezra 
did  not  openly  declare  his  opinion,  but  put  it  in 
a  kind  of  cipher,  which  I  do  not  hesitate  to 
explain."  The  Rabbi  says,  concerning  Deutero- 
nomy, that  we  read  in  that  book  the  words, ^ 
"On  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan. "  Aben  Ezra 
spoke  also  of  how  "the  Canaanite  was  then 
in  the  land";  and  he  added:  "and  herein  is  a 
secret,  and  let  him  be  silent  who  understands 
it,"  and  "then  you  shall  see  the  truth."  Spi- 
noza shows  further  by  his  quotation  that,  in 
order  to  evade  some  of  these  evidences,  Jona- 
than, the  writer  of  the  Aramaic  interpretations 
1  Deuteronomy  i.  i,  4;  iii.  8;  iv.  41-49;  etc. 


134  Old  Testament  Criticism 

of  Scripture,  actually  mistranslated  passages 
rather  than  reveal  difficulties  that  he  felt  deeply. 
Space  forbids  further  quotation ;  but  the  reader 
of  the  Tract  will  find  how  clearly  Spinoza  antici- 
pated the  methods  of  some  of  the  results  of 
modern  critical  students,  and  prepared  the  way 
for  them.  It  is  specially  to  be  noticed  that  he 
shows  how  such  freedom  of  criticism  was  al- 
ready five  centuries  old  in  his  time.  True  it  is, 
certainly,  that  he  shows  how  "the  prudent  man 
had  to  keep  silence"  in  the  twelfth  century. 

Chapter  ix.  examines  "Whether  Ezra  was  the 
last  to  retouch  those  mentioned  books,  and 
whether  the  marginal  notes  found  on  Hebrew 
manuscripts  were  various  readings." 

Chapter  x.  considers  the  remaining  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  same  fashion. 

Chapter  xi.  considers  the  Apostles. 

Chapter  xii.  considers  the  real  meaning  of  the 
term  "Word  of  God,"  and  asks  in  what  sense 
the  Scriptures  are  to  be  called  "Holy,"  and  in 
what  sense  they  are  the  Word  of  God.  Spinoza 
holds  that  in  so  far  as  they  contain  the  Word  of 
God  they  have  come  to  us  unadulterated. 

Chapter  xiii.  shows  "That  the  Scriptures 
teach  concerning  the  Divine  nature  nothing 
save  what  men  themselves  may  be,  if  they  will 
only  follow  a  particular  way  of  life." 

Chapter  xiv.  discusses  "Faith"  and  "Be- 
lievers." 


By  Jewish  Scholars  and  Rabbis       135 

Chapter  xv.  is  entitled  ''Theology  is  not  the 
servant  of  reason,  nor  is  reason  the  servant  of 
theology." 

Chapters  xvi.  to  xx.  treat  of  more  politi- 
cal matters,  speaking  of  "The  basis  of  the 
State,"  and  especially  of  the  Hebrew  Govern- 
ment. 

The  last  few  chapters  reveal  the  anxiety  of 
Spinoza  to  shut  out  hierarchical  interference 
from  his  little  land  of  Holland,  and  to  make  his 
people  leaders  in  all  thoughtfulness.  It  was  for 
such  ends  that  he  studied  his  Hebrew  literature 
and  Hebrew  history;  therefore  his  criticism 
was  a  deeply  practical  element  of  his  life,  in 
the  midst  of  the  sternest  conflicts  of  society  all 
around  him.  In  such  sense  his  work  was 
genuinely  fitted  to  be  the  dawn  of  a  new  age. 
We  go  forward  from  this  man  and  the  new  era 
he  opened,  to  watch  criticism  in  that  later  age 
which  is  our  own.  First  let  us  put  together 
in  a  few  statements  the  substance  of  the  whole 
Jewish  story  as  thus  far  seen. 

I.  Jewish  students  were  compelled  to  be 
critical  in  self-defence  over  against  the  ever- 
growing power  of  the  nascent  Christianity; 
but  the  efforts  of  Jewish  criticism  concerned 
almost  exclusively  ethical  development,  while 
the  actual  text  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
guarded  as  a  palladium  too  sacred  to  be  touched. 
Copies  of  it  had  to  be  exact  reproductions,  the 


136  Old  Testament  Criticism 

newer  of  the  older,  even  in  the  minutest  matters 
of  writing  and  spelling. 

2.  Yet  the  Jewish  students  were  among  the 
earliest  to  hail  the  Renaissance;  they  were  in 
some  sense  its  forerunners,  for  keen  critics  like 
Aben  Ezra  thought  and  wrote  a  whole  century 
before  Oxford  was  founded.  The  Jewish  succes- 
sion of  such  noble  workmen  continued,  until  they 
had  taught  Luther  and  his  Reforming  comrades. 

3.  Spinoza,  the  true  Jew  who  was  also  true 
Christian,  gathered  into  one  treasure  of  utterance 
the  critical  wisdom,  the  critical  conscience,  the 
critical  courage  that  had  been  developed  in  the 
story  of  these  two  antagonistic  families  of  lovers 
of  the  Old  Testament.  He  laid  down,  to  use 
another  great  teacher's  phrase,  the  prolegomena 
for  every  future  real  study  of  the  Scriptures  in 
that  Theological  and  Political  Tract  which  we 
have  just  examined. 

4.  Spinoza  defined  in  his  Tract  the~  three 
great  aims  for  every  future  student:  (i.)  That 
there  must  be  thorough  linguistic  knowledge, 
(ii.)  There  must  be  analysis  of  the  writings  to 
discover  their  original  documents  and  the  au- 
thors of  these,  (iii.)  The  aim  of  all  study  and 
interpretation,  and  the  principle  of  it  and  the 
test  of  it,  must  be  a  critical  reconstruction  of 
the  history  of  the  literature,  the  ideas,  and  the 
religion  of  the  people.  History  mvist  be  the 
pole-star  of  the  investigator. 


Chapter  VI 
From  Spinoza  to  Astruc 

HAS  not  every  one  regarded  the  Reformation 
of  the  sixteenth  century  as  so  entirely 
based  upon  the  Bible  that  the  ages  following 
might  be  supposed  to  be  saturated  with  the 
volume's  own  teaching  concerning  itself,  as 
well  as  concerning  all  else  that  affects  mankind? 
And  A^et  closer  examination  will  make  it  clear 
that  the  Bible  was  not  the  basis  of  the  Reforma- 
tion: the  basis  was  the  recognition  of  the  value 
of  the  soul  and  mind  of  man.  The  Bible,  and 
its  own  light  upon  itself,  were  so  thoroughly 
secondary  that  the  actual  use  of  it  and  the  study 
of  it  were  desultory  and  wayward  to  a  strange 
degree;  and  the  result  was  an  utter  maze  of 
fanciful  comments,  opinions,  and  very  different 
theories,  and  of  results  that  show  very  little 
organic  interrelation,  and  baffle  earnest  effort 
to  see  the  path  of  logical  mental  progress 
through  them.  The  writings  and  the  minds 
of  the  many  students  of  Biblical  matters  in 
the  years  from  1550  to  1850  are  a  thicket,  or 
137 


138  Old  Testament  Criticism 

almost  an  impenetrable  jungle.  To  count  the 
trees  in  all  this  mass  would  be  a  weary  task,  and 
to  set  down  all  the  tale  would  be  a  thankless 
service,  for  it  could  not  win  much  study  even 
from  the  souls  that  hunger  for  a  vision  of  a 
guiding  hand  in  the  ages. 

There  have  been  penned  three  valuable  and 
brief  summaries  of  the  story — namely:  (i.)  In 
Mr.  W.  E.  Addis's  Documents  of  the  Hexateuch, 
published  in  1892,  in  which  the  prefatory  para- 
graphs, pp.  xiii.  to  xli.  give  a  summary  of  "The 
history  of  opinion  on  the  origin  and  date  of  the 
Hexateuch."  (ii.)  In  Dr.  B.  W.  Bacon's 
Genesis  of  Genesis,  published  in  Hartford, 
U.  S.  A.,  in  1891,  the  Introduction  to  which, 
from  the  pen  of  Professor  G.  F.  Moore,  now  of 
Harvard,  gives  another  excellent  sketch,  (iii.)  In 
the  fine  volume  entitled  Fonnders  of  Old 
Testament  Criticism,  by  Professor  Canon  T.  K. 
Cheyne,  which  is  full  of  the  author's  per- 
sonal enthusiasm  and  devotion,  and  tells  the 
tale  more  fully;  though  it  begins  only  about 
1750  with  the  Englishmen  Warburton,  Lowth, 
and  Geddes. 

He  who  would  become  well  versed  in  the 
story  should  make  close  acquaintance  with  all 
three  of  these  volumes.  A  summary  is  as 
follows : 

(1.)  Some  few  features  of  the  movement 
were,   of    course,    chronologically    earlier   than 


From  Spinoza  to  Astruc  139 

the   time   of   Spinoza,    and   these  require  brief 
mention. 

(i.)  The  Reformers,  both  Lutheran  and  Swiss, 
did  good  work  for  criticism  in  demanding  that 
the  people  should  read  the  Scriptures  for  them- 
selves, and  also  in  giving  men  the  Bible  in  their 
own  tongue.  They  were  certainly  not  minded 
to  submit  their  teaching  to  the  arbitrament 
of  the  Book,  as  distinct  from  their  own  subjec- 
tive judgment  of  what  it  meant.  They  hon- 
oured the  independent  human  soul  first,  and 
believed  that  God  held  their  individual  callings 
and  their  independent  minds  as  infinitely  dear 
and  entirely  near  to  Himself.  For  this  reason 
they  refused  any  papal  control  over  their  lives, 
and  denied  all  papal  right  to  give  exclusive 
interpretation  of  the  literature  of  Hebrews,  or 
Jews,  or  early  Christians  concerning  Jesus. 
All  this  was  good,  and  it  was  in  the  line  of  pro- 
gress, and  was  sure  in  time  to  bring  about  edu- 
cation, universities,  and  historical  and  linguistic 
knowledge  and  skill.  But  meanwhile  the  edu- 
cational outfit  was  meagre,  as  well  it  might  be 
after  the  long  Roman  oppression;  consequently 
Luther's  translation  of  the  Bible  was  not 
genuinely  critical.  Kostlin's  great  Life  of 
Luther  shows  abundantly  the  wonderful  man's 
humble  consciousness  of  his  own  imperfect 
power  to  translate  adequately.  Yet,  while 
Luther  was  nailing  up  his  Theses  in  Wittenberg, 


140  Old  Testament  Criticism 

his  colleagues  and  he  himself  also  were  asking 
boldly  what  it  mattered  whether  Moses  wrote 
or  did  not  write  all  of  the  Pentateuch. 

(ii.)  The  reforming  eagerness  that  all  people 
should  see  the  actual  words  of  Scripture  pro- 
duced very  soon  a  rich  fruit;  and  one  of  the 
remarkable  signs  of  the  times  was  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  great  Polyglot  Bibles.  The  more 
famous  four  of  these  were  described  already  in 
1678  by  Richard  Simon,  Priest  of  the  Congre- 
gation of  the  Oratory,  in  his  Critical  History  of 
the  Old  Testament.  They  are:  The  Polyglot 
of  Alcala,  called  "The  Complutensian, "  and 
dated  15 14;  that  of  Philip  II.  of  Spain,  called 
"The  Antwerp,"  dated  1569;  that  of  Paris, 
known  as  "Jay's,"  dated  1629;  and  that  of 
Walton,  called  "The  English  Polyglot,"  dated 
1657.  There  had  been  previously  several  minor 
works  of  the  sort  even  as  early  as  1586,  as  well 
as  the  so-called  Rabbinical  Bibles,  which  had 
set  together,  side  by  side  on  the  same  page,  the 
texts  of  the  Hebrew  original  and  the  Aramaic 
interpretations,  giving  also  on  the  same  page 
commentaries  of  noted  Rabbis.  The  new 
method  of  the  Polyglots  sought  to  make  public 
all  the  various  known  versions — the  Hebrew, 
Greek,  Latin,  Arabic,  Syriac,  etc.  And,  sin- 
gularly, the  Roman  Catholic  scholars  were  even 
more  eager  than  the  Protestants  to  render  this 
service.     This   was   criticism;    for   it   not    only 


From  Spinoza  to  Astruc  141 

implied  much  critical  work  by  the  editors, 
but  it  also  submitted  the  actual  texts  to  the 
comparison  and  the  judgment  of  every  one. 

(iii.)  We  have  just  named  Richard  Simon 
and  his  notable  Histoire  Critique,  suppressed 
indeed  when  first  published  in  1678,  but  re- 
printed in  Rotterdam  in  1685.  Spinoza's  Tract, 
already  described,  had  appeared  in  1670,  or  per- 
haps even  a  little  earlier.  Simon  seems  to  have 
purposed  his  work  as  an  overwhelming  answer 
to  the  Dutch- Jewish  master;  and  at  once  in  the 
preface  he  denounces  Spinoza  as  a  man  who 
denies  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  calls  them  "purely  human."  We  know 
that  Spinoza  did  nothing  of  the  sort ;  yet  prob- 
ably Simon's  denunciation. has  had  much  to  do 
with  the  condemnatory  treatment  that  Spinoza 
has  received  from  both  Catholics  and  Protest- 
ants ever  since.  .  Singularly  enough,  Simon 
himself  fell  under  the  ban  for  heterodoxy, 
because  of  this  great  work  of  his ;  he  too  has  been 
looked  at  sidelong  all  through  these  two  hund- 
red years.  No  wonder,  for  he  could  use  strong 
expressions.  He  had  little  patience  with  any 
Protestant  theologians  who  ventured  to  handle 
the  Scriptures,  and  he  writes  of  them  thus: 
"Cette  perfection  que  nous  cherchons,  et  qui 
n'a  point  ete  connue  des  Protestans"  (book  ii., 
chapter  xxiii.).  Again,  he  calls  Walton,  the 
editor  of  the  Eno^lish  Polvelot,  "a  thief";  even 


142  Old  Testament  Criticism 

although  he  looks  on  him  as  better  than  most 
Protestants,  because  he  was  an  episcopal  prelate. 
On  the  other  hand,  Simon  fearlessly  points  out 
the  liberty  which  the  prophets  took  in  altering 
the  ancient  sacred  writings;  he  gives  also  the 
evidence  from  "repetitions,"  and  these  even 
in  the  Pentateuch,  that  no  one  man  can  have 
written  all  the  five  books,  and  that  certainly 
Moses  did  not  write  them.  He  had  studied 
Judaism  well;  and,  naturally,  he  was  deeply 
impressed  with  the  great  value  of  the  constant 
devotion  of  the  Jews  to  their  literature  and  to 
righteousness.  He  declares,  as  we  have  had 
occasion  to  see,  that  the  Jews  were  far  more 
liberal  before  their  conflict  with  Christianity 
than  they  became  under  the  influence  of  the 
controversy  therewith. 

(iv.)  It  is  right  to  name  here,  finally,  Thomas 
Hobbes  (i 588-1 679),  who  is  often  quoted,  as 
having  said,  in  his  Leviathan,  or  Doctrine  of  the 
State,  that  a  Mosaic  authorship  for  the  Penta- 
teuch was  not  at  all  indispensable. 

Most  of  these  utterances,  however,  were  of 
little  importance,  for  they  were  only  negative; 
moreover,  two  large  fields  of  life  and  study  had 
to  be  surveyed  before  any  positive  knowledge 
and  really  useful  critical  results  could  be  gained 
concerning  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament. 
First,  linguistic  attainments  had  to  be  far 
greater  than  hitherto;  and,  secondly,  the  essen- 


From  Spinoza  to  Astruc  143 

tial  value  of  history,  and  even  the  clear  idea 
of  what  history  is,  had  to  dawn  on  men's  minds 
before  a  really  thorough  criticism  could  emerge. 
We  turn  to  watch  the  coming  of  the  dawn  over 
these  two  regions  that  were  still  so  dark. 

(II.)  The  linguistic  field  was  eagerly  cultivated 
by  a  series  of  men  whose  works  are,  in  several 
cases,  of  much  practical  value  to  this  day.  We 
have  mentioned  the  Polyglot  Bibles:  these  in- 
cluded studies  of  grammar  which  are  still 
usable;  while  their  lexicons,  provided  in  a  time 
when  few  such  existed  elsewhere  to  aid  any  one 
who  desired  to  read  the  various  texts,  are  in  some 
instances  still  among  the  best.  Such,  for  ex- 
ample, is  the  Syriac  Lexicon  by  Edmund  Cas- 
tellus  printed  in  Walton's  English  Polyglot. 
Then  for  a  whole  hundred  years  the  devoted 
family  of  the  Buxtorfs  were  Hebraists  of  note, 
the  greatest  of  whom  was  John  Buxtorf,  called 
commonly  "the  Father"  (1564- 1629),  Professor 
in  the  University  of  Basel  for  thirty-eight  years. 
He  was  followed  in  the  same  office  for  nearly 
as  long  a  period  by  his  son,  John  Buxtorf, 
commonly  known  as  "the  Son"  (1599- 1664). 
The  father  prepared  a  little  lexicon  that  is  much 
used  to  this  day;  and  father  and  son  together 
constructed  the  great  Concordance  to  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  which  is  still  most  valuable,  and 
is  indeed  almost  indispensable  to  the  Hebrew 
student,  for  there  is  no  other  such  work  save 


144  Old  Testament  Criticism 

the  much  more  costly  Concordance  of  Fuerst. 
Alongside  of  these  two  scholars  lived  Salomon 
Glass,  whose  work  on  Hebrew  philology  is  still 
much  used.  Then  came  the  two  noted  Hebra- 
ists bearing  the  name  Michaelis:  John  Henry 
(1668-1738),  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Halle, 
editor  of  a  still  usable  edition  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible;  and  his  grand-nephew,  John  David  (1717- 
1791),  Professor  in  Gottingen,  author  of  one  of 
the  earliest  so-called  "Introductions."  This 
latter  did  good  service  also  through  his  study 
of  The  Mosaic  Law.  An  especial  interest 
gathers  round  these  two  men,  because  the  nota- 
ble Pietistic  movement  was  in  their  day  at 
its  highest  bloom.  Its  centre  was  the  Uni- 
versity and  the  city  of  Halle,  with  Francke,  the 
founder  of  the  great  orphan-house,  at  the  head. 
J.  H.  Michaelis  succeeded  Francke  as  Professor 
of  Hebrew  in  the  University  when  the  latter 
took  the  Chair  of  Systematic  Theology.  The 
whole  tone  of  life  and  of  study  in  Halle  at  the 
time  was  pietistic ;  the  aim  in  use  of  the  Scrip- 
tures being  scarcely  historical  at  all,  but  an  effort 
to  find  edification  only. 

(III.)  There  was  awaking  in  those  genera- 
tions a  singular  sense  of  need  for  what  Spinoza 
called  a  historical  grasp  of  the  literature  of  the 
Hebrews  and  the  Jews.  Few  writers  of  the 
time  treated  directly  of  this  field,  and  yet  a 
work  by  one  of  them  is  a  classic.     In  the  seven- 


From  Spinoza  to  Astruc  145 

teenth  century,  in  addition  to  Simon  and 
Spinoza,  Dr.  John  Spencer,  of  Ely  and  Cam- 
bridge (1630-1695),  in  his  Laivs  of  the  Hebrews 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  science  of  Compara- 
tive Religion,  as  W.  Robertson  Smith  has  said 
in  his  brilliant  lectures  on  ''The  Religion  of  the 
Semites."  The  very  first  words  of  its  prole- 
.gomena  are:  "To  show  that  the  laws  and  rites 
of  the  Jews  were  not  instituted  of  God  without 
reasonable  ends."  Spencer  then  goes  forward 
to  assert  the  propriety  of  studying  the  "ration- 
ality" of  all  such  matters  of  cultus,  as  that  ra- 
tionality is  to  be  found  in  the  "pleasure,  the 
usefulness,  the  respectability,  and  the  novelty 
and  rarity  thereof. " 

Similarly  brave  was  the  Scottish  Catholic 
priest,  Alexander  Geddes,  in  his  New  Trans- 
lation of  the  Bible,  published  about  1792.  He 
died  ere  his  task  was  completed,  but  the  two 
stately  quarto  volumes  gave  the  translation 
from  Genesis  to  Chronicles.  A  later  volume 
of  Critical  Remarks  led  to  his  suspension  from 
office;  but  his  teaching  recorded  in  his  preface 
to  Genesis  could  not  be  suspended.  We  may 
quote  a  sentence  or  two  from  that  preface  (p. 
iii.) :  "To  me  it  is  sufficiently  evident  that  the 
world  of  the  Hebrew  cosmologist  was  a  recent 
world,  created  out  of  pre-existing  matter";  and 
again  on  p.  vi. :  "There  arc  many  sincere  friends 
of  religion  who  are  not  of  the  opinion  '  that  every 


146  OJd  Testament  Criticism 

word  of  the  Pentateuch  is  divinely  inspired,' 
and  I  freely  confess  myself  to  be  one  of  them." 
Thus  we  are  led  to  the  threshold  of  our  present 
period.  With  Astruc  an  entirely  new  process 
emerged. 


From  Mr.  Rtsch^itz 

Jean  Astruc 

Dr.  Med.,  Royal  Phy3ic::ir.  and  Profccs^r  cf   Medicine,  Paris. 


Chapter  VII 

Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc 
till   Now 

I.     Aids  and  Hindrances 

A  FEW  introductory  notes  are  necessary  con- 
^^  cerning  the  environments  of  criticism, 
and  preparation  for  it  during  the  past  century. 
I.  From  the  Renaissance  to  the  year  1800 
the  minds  of  men  were  steadily  awakening  to 
consciousness  of  the  value  of  each  individual 
as  against  all  aristocracies.  This  religious 
valuation  led  naturally  to  that  missionary  effort 
at  home  and  abroad  which  seeks  to  acquaint 
every  human  soul  with  its  value ;  and  then  arose 
the  demand  for  dissemination  of  the  literature 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Hence  was 
born  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  in 
1804,  which  has  already  issued  in  all  215,000,000 
copies  of  Scripture  in  418  different  languages. 
Thus  the  nineteenth  century  became  in  a  large 
sense  a  Bible-reading  age;  but  it  needs  to  be 
remembered  that  this  was  the  first  really  Bible- 
reading  age  in  the  history  of  the  world,  as  J.  A. 
Picton's  admirable  book  on  Man  and  the  Bible 
148 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  149 

has  proved.  The  fairly  general  reading  through- 
out the  century  since  then  has  had  a  powerful 
influence  in  promoting  strictly  scientific  critic- 
ism; for  it  is  impossible  now  for  any  teacher 
to  ignore  in  public  the  difficulties  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, since  most  people  have  seen  these  with 
their  own  eyes. 

2.  It  is  important  to  see  how  critical  study  of 
the  Scriptures  has  arisen  and  grown  hand-in-hand 
and  stage-by-stage  along  with  the  philosophic 
activity  which  means  scientific  formulation 
of  the  consciousness  of  men.  When  Kant 
propounded  his  doctrine  of  the  freedom  to 
think,  just  then  Dr.  Astruc  and  his  few  comrades 
were  venturing  to  analyse  Genesis.  Notably, 
however,  Kant  did  not  provide  any  unfailing 
criterion,  whereby  men  might  test  their  final 
results,  and  might  have  a  sufficient  certainty 
and  also  a  satisfying  unity  in  their  operations. 
Hegel  did  this  work ;  he  saw  that  there  is  in  this 
world  more  than  the  individual  life  of  each  of 
us;  there  is  the  long  course  of  history  which 
becomes,  as  we  look  on  it,  the  very  autograph, 
or  we  may  say  the  great  individual  record  of 
the  Invisible  Cause  himself.  It  was  a  pupil  of 
Hegel,  Wilhelm  Vatke,  who  published  in  Berlin 
in  1835  his  Biblical  Theology  Scientifically 
Exhibited,  which  aimed  at  discovery  of  the  great 
history  which  is  concealed  amid  all  the  varying 
documents   of   Hebrew   and   Jewish   literature; 


Fro77t  Mr.  Rischgitz 

JoHANN  Karl  Wiliielm  Vatke 

Dr.  Theol.,  Prcfesscr  of  Old  Testament  Theology,  Berlin. 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  151 

and  the  substance  of  Vatke's  book  remains  to 
this  day,  in  the  main,  unchallenged  and  con- 
firmed as  correct.  We  may  well  quote  two 
sentences  concerning  this  work  from  Pfleiderer's 
volume  on  Development  of  Theology  (1890):  ''As 
a  disciple  of  Hegel,  Vatke  had  a  keen  eye  for 
the  laws  of  the  mental  development  and  re- 
ligious consciousness  of  nations."  But  the 
book  met  with  a  strange  fate.  "It  was  not 
until  1 865-1 870  that  the  same  critical  views 
were  again  advanced  in  a  different  form,  and 
they  have  evoked  ever-growing  interest." 

3.  The  keen  instinct  of  Spinoza  saw  the  need 
of  critical  study  of  the  Old  Testament  language, 
its  vocabulary,  and  its  grammar.  A  few  words 
may  sum  up  the  history  of  this  department. 

(i.)  Strangely,  the  matter  of  lexicon,  or  know- 
ledge of  vocabulary  of  the  Old  Testament 
language,  has  moved  most  slowly  of  all  the  depart- 
ments of  study.  Gesenius  began  to  publish  a 
small  lexicon  in  18 10,  but  not  until  1858  did  Emil 
Rodiger  complete  the  "Gesenius"  Thesaurus 
of  the  then-existing  stories  of  acquaintance 
with  the  meaning  of  Hebrew  words;  so  that 
Thesaurus  took  half  a  century  in  construction. 
The  methods  followed  in  it  were  naturally 
somewhat  medieval;  and,  strange  to  say,  these 
methods  rule  most  of  the  lexicons:  Fuerst's, 
Stade's,  and  the  "Oxford,"  to  this  day. 

(ii.)    In    grammatical     territory    there    was 


152 


Old  Testament  Criticism 


similar  slow  advance,  until  H.  Ewald  (1803  to 
1874)    constructed    his    philosophically-planned 


^-^f^ 

'S:.~>^..                           /Ik 

^^^^H^^^^  1  BB||||K 

Bernhard  Stade 

Dr.  Theol.  et  Phil.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament  Theology,  Giessen. 

By  kinii />crinissio?i 


but  all  too  fanciful  Ilaiidbook,  editions  of  which 
work    ran    on    from    1827    to    1863.     In    1 861 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  153 

Justus  Olshausen  published  his  carefully-ordered 
System,  surpassing  Ewald  by  far;  and  he  was 
followed  by  Stade  of  Giessen,  in  a  similar 
work  published  in  1879,  with  even  fuller  material. 
Then  the  brilliant  master  of  Semitic  languages, 
Paul  de  Lagarde,  issued  in  1889  his  splendid 
analysis  of  The  Structure  of  Aramaic,  Arabic,  and 
Hebrew  Nouns.  Comparative  Semitic  grammar 
in  the  hands  of  these  teachers  shows  that  the 
language  of  the  Old  Testament  is  one  of  the 
most  natural,  most  logically  constructed,  and 
most  simple  of  all  languages;  although,  like 
the  languages  of  all  merchant  peoples,  especially 
of  peoples  dwelling  as  the  Hebrews  did  on  a  great 
international  highway,  it  has  suffered  a  good 
deal  of  debasement  by  rubbing  and  roughening. 
There  is  not  in  it  an  atom  of  the  unlikeness  to 
all  other  sorts  of  speech  which  the  less  critical 
ages  supposed  it  to  possess. 

4.  We  turn  now  to  the  fascinating  story  of 
the  re-discovery  of  the  original  documents  from 
v/hich  the  Narrative  Books  were  formed.  Some 
special  prefatory  words  are  here  needed: 

(i.)  The  task  of  discovery  has  been  accom- 
plished amid  almost  overwhelming  difficulties. 
The  deep  prejudice  felt  and  expressed  by  re- 
ligious organisations  has  compelled  the  toilers 
to  "keep  silence  in  the  evil  day,"  as  Amos 
counselled ;  so  the  work  has  had  to  be  done  many 
a  time  in  secret.     The  workmen  have  in  some 


154  Old  Testament  Criticism 

cases  waited  long  years  ere  they  have  made 
public  what  they  knew  to  be  right  and  to  be 
very  precious.  In  the  article  concerning  Dr. 
As  true  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyclopedia,  E. 
Bohmer  quotes  from  the  Eloge  historique  of  the 
Regent  of  the  Medical  Faculty  in  Paris,  in  1767, 
these  pathetic  words:  "Ce  ne  fut  que  lorsqu'il 
se  sentit  avance  en  age  qu'il  se  crut  en  droit 
de  donner  au  public  un  travail  qu'il  avait 
medite  longtemps.  Le  scrupule  le  retenoit." 
Later  on  the  mischief  of  prejudice  appeared 
more  sadly,  when  in  18 19  De  Wette  was  ex- 
pelled from  his  professorship  in  Berlin,  nomi- 
nally for  a  political  reason,  but  really  through 
ecclesiastical  enmity.  In  vain  ''the  Faculty  of 
Theology,  led  by  Schleiermacher,  did  all  in  its 
power  to  save  one  of  its  ablest  members,"  as 
Cheyne's  beautiful  tribute  tells.  We  are  pre- 
sently to  see  also  what  splendid  and  epoch- 
making  service  Bishop  Colenso  did  for  the  Old 
Testament,  as  the  students  of  the  matter  have 
long  agreed;  and  yet  in  1864  Bishop  Gray  of 
Capetown  formally  excommunicated  Colenso. 
Nearer  still  to  our  own  day,  by  a  majority  of 
half-a-dozen  in  an  assembly  of  many  hundreds, 
the  Free  Church  of  Scotland  deposed  from  the 
ministry  of  the  Gospel  one  of  the  ablest  theo- 
logians of  the  century — William  Robertson 
Smith — and  denounced  his  brilliant  teaching 
as  heresy. 


From  Messrs.  Elliott  b'  Fry 

The  Right  Rev.  John  William  Colenso,  D.D. 

Anglican  Bishop  of  Natal. 


156  Old  Testament  Criticism 

(ii.)  Difficulty  has  been  great  and  long,  be- 
cause the  field  was  so  new,  the  methods  almost 
all  untried.  Most  of  the  appliances  necessary 
in  such  analytical  study,  such  as  the  sciences 
of  comparative  vocabulary,  style,  ritual,  and 
ethical  history,  had  to  be  constructed.  Just 
herein,  indeed,  lay  one  excellence  of  the  work: 
the  surveyors,  explorers,  analysts,  had  con- 
tinually to  make  tentative  theories,  as  in  every 
similar  investigation  of  nature.  They  had  to 
suggest  possible  solutions  of  problems,  then  to 
reject  what  did  not  stand  the  test  of  application, 
and  to  lay  down  what  did  stand  testing  as  a 
new  foundation  for  the  next  steps. 

(iii.)  The  aim  has  alwa37S  been  to  construct. 
The  Old  Testament  stands  to-day  as  a  great 
re-constructed  treasure;  as  a  whole,  it  is  more 
intensely  studied  than  ever  it  was  before,  and 
there  is  vastly  more  labour,  time,  and  expense 
of  every  kind  expended  upon  its  pages  than  was 
ever  spent  in  the  ages  past.  In  addition  there 
has  been  re-discovered  and  re-constructed  an 
immense  mass  of  ancient  Hebrew  and  Jewish 
literature  and  literary  life  that  had  actually 
been  lying  hidden  on  its  own  pages,  all  unknown 
through  many  generations. 

(iv.)  As  we  proceed  to  see  what  Dr.  Astruc 
did,  let  us  note  that  there  were  others  at  work 
in  a  similar  way  at  the  same  time.  The  article 
in  Herzog  referred  to  already  tells  of  a  Disserta- 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  157 

tion  by  Peter  Brouwer,  presented  to  the  Uni- 
versity of  Leyden  in  1753,  the  very  year  of 
Astruc's  first  pubHcation;  and  Brouwer  had 
made  an  analysis  much  Hke  that  of  Dr.  Astruc. 

2.  The     Discovery     of     the     Foundation 
Document 

1.  Dr.  Astruc  published  in  1753  his  Con- 
jectures sur  les  memoir  es  originaux  dont  il  par  oil 
que  Moyse  se  servit  pour  composer  le  livre  le  la 
Genese.  Because  of  this  work  Astruc  must 
always  be  honoured  as  the  man  who  showed  the 
key  to  the  fundamental  operation  of  the  analysis. 
Here  he  discovered  the  Foundation  Document 
of  Genesis,  which  he  called  "the  Elohist." 

2.  Dr.  Astruc's  name  suggests  Jewish  descent, 
for  the  Jewish  EncyclopcBdia's  article  on  the 
word,  by  Professor  Gottheil  of  New  York,  says : 
"As  a  praenomen  the  word  'Astruc'  was  used 
frequently  by  Jews  in  southern  France  and 
eastern  Spain";  and  again:  "It  is  used  to  this 
day  as  a  family  name  in  France." 

3.  Now,  concerning  the  analysis, — Astruc  saw 
and  pointed  out  the  remarkable  fact  that  in 
Genesis  i.  and  ii.  there  are  two  different  names 
used  for  Deity.  This  had  been  observed  as  far 
away  back  as  Augustine  and  Tertullian;  but 
Astruc  set  about  using  the  phenomenon  as  a  guide 
to  analysis.     Giving  the  designation  "A"  to  all 


i5< 


Old  Testament  Criticism 


passages  using  the  one  name  "Elohim, "  and  the 
sign  ''  B  "  to  all  that  use  the  other  name  "  Ihwh, " 
he  set  down  the  two  series  of  passages  separately. 
Observe  that  the  reader  of  the  English  Bible  will 
not  find  the  word  "Ihwh"  or  "lahweh"  in  Gen- 
esis ;  but  instead  of  this  the  word  Lord  appears 
in  Genesis  ii.,  etc.  The  explanation  is  that  the 
word  "Ihwh"  is  never  pronounced  by  the  Jew. 
When  he  comes  to  it  in  his  reading  of  his  Old 
Testament,  he  reverently  says  "My  Lord," 
and  the  English  Version  has  copied  this  custom. 
Now  let  us  show  how  wonderfully  Astruc  was 
thus  able  to  obtain,  in  the  year  1753,  almost  the 
same  result  that  the  latest  analysts  agree  in 
finding.  We  can  illustrate  this  by  setting  in 
parallel  columns  side  by  side  the  "Elohim" 
passages  as  indicated  by  Astruc,  and  the  like 
given  by  Dr.  Bacon,  of  Yale  University,  in  his 
Genesis  of  Genesis.     Here  they  are: 


Astruc's   El 0 hist  in 
Genesis  i.  to  xvii. 


Gen.  i.  i  to  ii.  3. 
Ch.  V.  I  to  the  end. 
Ch.  vi.  9-22. 
Ch.   vii.   6-10;   19,  22, 
24. 


Bacon's  Elohist,  now 
commonly  called  the 
Priestly    Book,     or 

up    „ 

Gen  i.  i  to  ii.  4a. 
Ch.  V.  all  except  v.  29. 
Ch.  vi.  9-22. 
Ch.  vii.  6,   1 1-2 1,  ex- 
cept 17b,  24. 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  159 

Bacon — Continued 


Astruc — Continued 
Ch.  viii.  1-19. 

Ch.  ix.   i-io,   12,   i6f, 

28f. 

Ch.  xi.  10-26. 


Ch.  xvii.  3-27. 


Ch.    viii.    1-5,    except 

2b,  also  13a,   14-19. 

Ch.  ix.  1-17,  28f;  also 

ch.  X.  la,  2-7,  20,22f, 

31  f. 

Ch.  xi.  10-27,  3if;  also 
xii.  5;  xiii.  6,  12; 
alsoxvi.  la,  3,  15  f. 

Ch.  xvii.  1-27. 


It  can  be  easily  seen  that  there  is  remarkable 
agreement  in  chapters  i.-xvii.  Then,  however, 
serious  variation  enters ;  but  even  this  has  proved 
to  be  extremely  interesting,  for  we  know  now 
that  just  at  chapter  xvii.  there  begins  the  inser- 
tion of  another  quite  different  document,  which 
is  also  peculiarly  Elohistic.  It  uses  the  name 
"Elohim"  until  the  third  chapter  of  Exodus, 
but  otherwise  it  is  almost  entirely  different  from 
the  production  of  the  Elohistic  scribe  who  wrote 
Genesis  chapter  i.^ 

This  leads  us  directly  to  the  next  stage  in  the 
tale.  But  ere  we  step  forward  let  us  note  how 
this  early  correct  instinct  displayed  by  Astruc 

1  The  name  "Priestly  Document"  or  "P"  is  now 
given  to  the  Foundation  Document,  for  very  simple 
reasons;  while  the  term  "Elohist"  or  "E"  is  reserved 
for  the  other  document  beginning  in  chapters  xv.-xx. 


i6o  Old  Testament  Criticism 

in  his  analysis  disposes  of  the  somewhat  too 
common  and  unwise  charge  against  the  BibHcal 
students  that  "they  never  agree."  The  same 
gate  or  key  to  the  right  road  has  been  used  by 
every  analyst  since  Astruc  discovered  it. 

3.  Of  the  Unravelling  of  the  Two  Earliest 
Sources 

The  lesson  learned  from  Astruc  leads  us  to 
another;  for  the  next  important  step  was  taken 
almost  at  once,  although,  strangely  enough, 
the  value  of  it  was  not  realised  for  fifty  years. 
Astruc  had  said  in  1753  that  he  believed  he 
could  recognise  thirteen  different  documents 
from  which  Moses  had  drawn  his  materials  or 
paragraphs.  In  1799  Professor  Ilgen,  of  Jena, 
published  a  work  claiming  that  there  are  seven- 
teen documents  used  in  Genesis ;  but  all  of  them 
are  the  work  of  probably  only  three  independent 
writers.  Canon  Cheyne  states  that  Ilgen's  three 
source- writers  were: — (I.)  The  first  scribe  who 
uses  the  name  "El"  for  God;  (II.)  the  second 
who  uses  the  same  name  "El";  and  (III.)  the 
first  who  uses  the  name  "lah."  Now,  that 
is  exactly  the  position  of  scientific  opinion  to- 
day; Ilgen's  discovery  of  a  hundred  and  ten 
years  ago  is  in  substance  the  present  common 
view.  Ilgen's  work  was  the  climax  of  what  is 
often  called  the  "first  Documentary  period"  of 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  i6i 

investigation — a  period  when  the  Pentateuch 
was  believed  to  be  a  combination  of  several 
documents.  What  drove  men  away  from  this 
position  it  is  hard  to  tell.  Possibly  it  was  the 
traditional  devotion  to  the  idea  that  there  must 
be,  after  all,  only  one  great  document.  In  any 
case,  after  Ilgen  a  new  period  began,  which  has 
been  called  the  "Fragment  Theory,"  and  which 
sought  to  account  for  the  phenomena  by  sup- 
posing that  there  was  only  one  Mosaic  work, 
beginning  in  Genesis  i.,  which  was  enlarged 
afterwards  by  the  addition  of  fragments  written 
by  many  men  at  many  times.  For  fifty  years 
there  went  on  the  long  contentions  of  De  Wette, 
and  a  host  of  others,  greater  and  lesser,  ending 
finally  with  the  brilliant  but  uncertain  conjec- 
tures of  Ewald  ( 1 803-1 875). 

At  last,  in  1853,  Professor  Hupfeld,  of  Halle, 
published  an  epoch-making  book  on  The  Sources 
of  Genesis  and  the  Mode  of  their  Combination ; 
and  here  at  last,  in  some  sense  independently, 
Hupfeld  made  again  the  old  discovery  of  Ilgen. 
He  gave  convincing  proof  that,  mingled  with 
some  paragraphs  taken  from  the  old  so-called 
"Elohist"  of  Genesis  i.,  etc.,  and  vSome  from  the 
lahwist  which  begins  in  Genesis  ii.  4,  there  was  a 
third  writing  singularly  related  to  each  of  these 
and  yet  singularly  different  from  either.  This 
new  Elohist  is  related,  said  Hupfeld,  to  "P" 
because  of  the  use  of  the  name  Elohim  until 


1 62 


Old  Testament   Criticism 


the  beginning  of  Exodus;  but  the  two  are  re- 
lated also  in  their  coinmon  tendency  to  form- 


Herrmann  Hupfeld 

Dr.  Theol.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament  Theology,  Halle  a/S. 


alism,  or  shall  we  say  to  pedagogic  aims.  In 
fact,  both  "E"  and  "P"  are  teachers;  but  they 
are  teachers  of  religious  theories,  **E"  seeking 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  163 

to  teach  a  new  moral  theory  of  religion,  and 
''P"  seeking  to  teach  a  new  ceremonial  system. 

4.    Concerning  the  Two  Law  Codes 

Ere  we  can  understand  fully  the  matter  of 
dating  the  documents,  we  must  look  at  a  part  of 
the  Hexateuch  which  we  have  scarcely  men- 
tioned so  far — namely, the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 

I.  Deuteronomy's  "Mosaic"  origin  was  ques- 
tioned by  Spinoza,  as  we  have  seen;  but  even 
before  Spinoza  our  fellow-Englishman  Hobbes, 
in  his  Leviathafi  (1651),  had  laid  his  finger  on 
this  book  as  the  starting-point  of  criticism  of  all 
Mosaicism.  Hobbes  doubted  the  story  of  the 
Lawgiver's  death  told  in  the  book  (c.  xxxiv.). 
How,  said  he,  could  a  man  write  down  the  story 
of  his  own  death  and  burial?  Going  farther,  he 
analysed  the  work  into  a  "husk"  enclosing  a 
"kernel,"  which  latter  is  cc.  xii.  to  xxviii.  Li 
1805  De  Wette  published  in  Jena  University 
his  graduation  Discourse  on  Deuteronomy,  claim- 
ing that  that  book  was  written  by  some  one 
different  from  the  writer  of  the  other  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  living  after  they  did.  De 
Wette  claimed  that  Deuteronomy  was  com- 
posed in  the  time  of  Josiah,  just  before  600  B.C., 
when  the  Deuteronomic  plan  of  having  only  one 
sanctuary  was  introduced  and  adopted.  One 
teacher   after   another   followed   in   support   of 


164 


Old  Testament  Criticism 


De  Wette's  theory;  until,  just  thirty  years  later, 
a  new  epoch  in  the  particular  field  was  opened. 


From  Mr.  Rischgitz 

WiLHELM  Martin  Leberecht  De  Wette 

Dr.  Theol.,  Professor  of    Old  Testament  Theology,  Berlin. 


In  1835  a  remarkable  work  on  The  Old  Jewish 
Festivals,  with  a  Critical  Study  of  the  Legislation 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  165 

of  the  Pentateuch,  was  issued  by  J.  F.  L.  George, 
a  young  lecturer  in  the  University  of  Berlin. 
Herein  George  proves  that  the  laws  of  Deu- 
teronomy are  evidently  older  than  almost  all 
other  Pentateuchal  laws;  and  he  lays  down 
propositions  that  ever  since  then  have  been 
seen  more  and  more  clearly  to  be  the  corner- 
stones of  all  criticism  of  Hebrew  history. 
Says  he:  "In  critical  investigations  of  the  Old 
Testament  the  Prophets  must  give  the  decis- 
ive light  concerning  date;  for  their  dates  are 
the  most  certain  among  all."  And  again: 
"The  Prophets  before  Jeremiah  refer  often  to  the 
popular  traditions  that  are  the  matter  of  the 
Pentateuch's  stories;  but  no  one  of  them  ever 
mentions  the  Pentateuch's  laws."  Farther: 
"Jeremiah  is  the  first  writer  who  both  knows 
and  speaks  of  'The  Law.'  The  law  that  Jere- 
miah names  is  Deuteronomy,  and  he  is  depend- 
ent largely  on  Deuteronomy."  Farther  again: 
"It  is  the  facts  of  the  story  of  the  development 
of  'priesthood'  that  have  chiefly  decided  the  date 
of  Deuteronomy.  The  decision  depends  on  the 
distinction  between  what  we  may  call  Xevitism' 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  entirely  peculiar 
character  of  Deuteronomy  on  the  other." 
Once  again:  "Ezekiel  stands  clearly  between 
Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus,  for  while  Jere- 
miah and  Deuteronomy  know  no  distinction 
between    the    priests    and    the    other    Levites, 


1 66  Old  Testament  Criticism 

Ezekiel,  on  the  other  hand,  begins  to  set  up 
such  a  distinction;  yet  Ezekiel  knows  nothing 
of  the  further  distinction  that  sets  a  '  high 
priest  above  the  priests,'  as  we  find  Leviticus 
prescribing." 

Thus  George  pointed  to  the  clue  for  the  critic- 
ism of  Deuteronomy,  and  of  the  whole  Pen- 
tateuch ;  and,  indeed,  of  all  Hebrew  history.  The 
treatise  of  Riehm,  of  Halle  (1854),  on  The 
Legislation  of  Moses  in  the  La?td  of  Moab, 
simply  drew  out  in  full  form  and  force  the  details 
of  George's  argument,  and  assigned  the  writing 
of  Deuteronomy  to  the  time  of  Manasseh, 
about  660  B.C.  Closer  investigation  is  at 
present  being  made  by  Steuernagcl,  especially 
to  discover  how  many  hands  took  part  in  the 
formation  of  "  D." 

2.  Very  early  in  the  study  of  the  so-called 
foundation  document  (Genesis  i.,  etc.)  differ- 
ences of  the  original  composers  of  various  por- 
tions of  it  were  suspected.  The  most  striking 
fact  was  the  peculiar  appearance  of  Leviticus, 
chapters  xvii.  to  xxvi.  To-day  this  little  book 
is  recognised  as  dating  from  Ezekiel' s  day,  600  to 
500  B.C.  Its  sources  were,  of  course,  still  older. 
The  combined  booklet  must  have  been  inserted 
into  the  Priestly  work  after  the  composition 
and  publication  of  that  work;  and  this  cannot 
date  earlier  than  the  days  of  Nehemiah,  about 

450  B.C. 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  167 

5.  The  Determination  of  the  Dates 

The  determination  of  the  dates  of  the  various 
documents  troubled  the  workmen  for  long  years. 
We  have  just  seen  that  in  1835  George  showed 
the  laws  of  Deuteronomy  to  be  older  than  most 
of  the  other  legislation  in  the  Pentateuch.  And 
yet  the  book  beginning  in  Genesis  i.  and  con- 
taining those  younger  laws  was  the  founda- 
tion document!  How  could  these  things  be 
reconciled? 

We  can  feel  to-day  how  natural  it  was  to 
decide  finally  that  the  youngest  source  of  all 
could  in  400  B.C.  be  made  the  foundation  docu- 
ment. But  how  was  it  discovered  that  "P" 
was  really  of  so  late  a  date  as  450  B.C. ?  We  have 
here  to  observe  a  transformation  of  opinion  that 
came  about  fifty  years  ago;  its  cause  is  of  deep 
interest  to  us. 

I.  Down  to  about  the  year  1866  even 
scholarly  men  could  not  overcome  the  old  rever- 
ence towards  the  stories  of  Creation  in  Genesis. 
All  seem  to  have  felt  especially  unwilling  to 
consider  as  of  late  origin  that  first  Creation 
story  of  Genesis  i.,  which  begins  so  grandly 
with  the  sublime  sentence:  "AVhen  at  the  first 
Elohim  fashioned  the  heavens  and  the  earth." 
And  yet  the  legislation  of  "P,"  connected  with 
that  narrative, was  the  youngest  set  of  laws  in  the 
Pentateuch.     Here  was  a  dilemma  that  troubled 


i68  Old  Testament  Criticism 

scholars  as  well  as  laity.  What  was  to  be  done? 
What  the  earnest  souls  did  was  to  say  : 
"Then  we  must  cut  the  knot.  We  must  regard 
the  Priestly  narrative  as  old  indeed;  but  we 
must  separate  from  this  the  Priestly  legisla- 
tion, and  we  must  regard  its  laws  for  ceremonies 
as  written  by  an  entirely  different  and  very  late 
hand."  The  view  was  set  up  that  some  person 
who  lived  long  hundreds  of  years  after  Moses 
had  succeeded  remarkably  in  adopting  the 
ancient  style  of  the  narrator  of  Genesis  i.,  etc. 
The  narrative,  it  was  felt,  must  be  honoured  as 
by  far  the  oldest  literature  of  the  Hebrew  race, 
and,  therefore,  worthy  of  entire  credence;  but 
the  ceremonial  rules  for  sanctuary,  priesthood, 
and  offerings  must  be  counted  as  the  very 
latest  and  the  most  richly  refined  methods  of  the 
people  as  they  entered  into  the  ways  of  Persian 
and  Greek  culture.  Such  was  the  situation  of 
criticism  from  1835  until  about  the  year  i860. 
2.  Singular  to  relate,  the  hand  of  an  English- 
man lifted  away  the  veil  from  the  scholars'  eyes. 
John  William  Colenso,  the  Anglican  Missionary 
Bishop  of  Natal,  in  South  Africa,  did  in  this 
matter  the  essential  service — somewhat  un- 
wittingly, indeed,  and  yet  very  thoroughly. 
That  service  has  made  him  deservedly  one  of  the 
foremost  leaders  in  Biblical  criticism.  His 
creative  touch  is  on  the  study  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment  for   all    time.     The   splendid   tribute    to 


By  kind  per  711  ission 


Abraham   Kuenen 

Dr.  Theoi.,  Professor  of  Theology,  University  of  Leiden. 
169 


lyo  Old  Testament  Criticism 

Colenso  given  by  Professor  Abraham  Kuenen, 
of  Leyden,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Historical 
Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and  Composition  of  the 
Hexateuch,  pubUshed  in  1886  in  EngHsh  transla- 
tion by  Professor  Wicksteed,  is  an  abiding 
utterance  of  thankful  praise  from  an  acknow- 
ledged representative  of  the  whole  world's  best 
scholarship.  We  are  far  enough  away  from 
Colenso  now  to  listen  to  Kuenen's  estimate,  and 
to  echo  in  England  the  praise  of  him  as  a  brave 
leader  in  our  own  land,  and  also  as  the  path- 
finder for  the  whole  science.  Kuenen  points  out, 
and  Cheyne  shows  also,  how,  among  all  the  seven 
volumes  of  Colenso's  magnum  opus,  Part  I. 
was  actually  the  most  valuable  of  all,  although  it 
was  the  very  part  which  brought  down  on  him 
the  bitterest  condemnations.  It  showed,  to 
quote  Kuenen,  "that  just  the  very  narratives 
of  the  foundation  document  'P'  were  the  piost 
helpless  before  criticism."  And  again:  ''The 
difficulties  on  which  Colenso  dwelt,  massed 
together  as  they  were  by  him,  and  set  together 
with  such  imperturbable  sang  froid  and  relent- 
less thoroughness"  showed  that  "we  had 
stopped  halfway  in  our  criticism  of  the  founda- 
tion document,  and  must  go  right  through  with 
it  before  we  could  reach  our  goal.  It  was 
Colenso  that  let  us  have  the  proofs,  not,  indeed, 
clearly  realised  by  himself,  that  the  narratives 
in    T'    must   be   regarded   as   inaccurate,    and 


By  kind peymission  of  P'ofcssor  Struck 

Karl  David  Ilgen 

Dr.  Theol.,  Professor  of  Theology,  Jena  University. 
171 


1/2  Old  Testament  Criticism 

therefore  late  conceptions"  of  a  time  removed 
by  long  ages  from  the  matters  they  describe. 
Therefore  the  narrative  portions  of  the  Penta- 
teuch were  no  longer  to  be  torn  away  from  the 
Levitical  descriptions  of  ceremonial  arrange- 
ments. Both  had  always  been  known  to  be  in 
the  same  style;  now  both  narratives  and  cere- 
monial rules  were  seen  to  be  from  the  same 
time,  and  from  the  same  school  of  writers: 
therefore,  since  the  ceremonial  parts  of  "P" 
were  post-exilic,  its  narratives  must  be  post- 
exilic  also.  "P"  was  thus  recognised  as  being 
altogether  the  product  of  450  B.C.  Kuenen, 
Graf,  and  many  another  declared  themselves  of 
this  opinion;  and  the  thinking  world  has  never 
gone  back  from  the  position  that  Colenso  her- 
alded, and  which  his  work  in  Natal  from  1862  to 
1879  compelled  all  students  to  adopt. 

3.  Meanwhile  Professor  Julius  Wellhausen^ 
then  of  Greifswald,  began  to  pubHsh  (1876- 
1877),  in  the  Year-books  for  German  Theology, 
his  now  long-famous  articles  concerning  ''The 
Composition  of  the  Hexateuch."  To  quote 
from  the  skilful  monograph  by  Professor  Gordon, 
of  Montreal,  in  the  Expositor  for  1905:  "Well- 
hausen  applied  the  critical  knife  to  the  analysis 
of  the  text,  dividing  between  the  lahwist  CJ')» 
the  Elohist  ('E')— i.e.,  Hupfeld's  Second  Elohist 
of  Genesis  xx.,  etc. — the  Deuteronomist  ('D'), 
and  the  Foundation  Document  (T'),  with  an 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now   173 

incisive  keenness  and  skill  and  a  reasoned  judg- 
ment, which  raised  his  articles  at  once  to  the 
rank  of  a  standard  work  on  the  subject. "  These 
articles  have  not  all  been  turned  into  English, 
so  that  our  countrymen  have  not  yet  had  the 
right  opportunity^  to  feel  their  power,  or,  indeed, 
to  deal  at  all  adequately  with  them.  Colenso 
did  translate  the  earlier  parts  of  them;  but  the 
complete  task  awaits  younger  hands. 

4.  Now,  ere  we  proceed  further,  let  it  be  set 
down  that  the  approximate  dates  of  the  three 
sources  we  have  described  run  thus,  according 
to  the  fairly  general  consensus  of  all  investi- 
gators : 

(i.)  The  lahwist  ("J")  must  have  been 
written  about  900  B.C.;  for  it  describes  the  com- 
ing of  the  Davidic  monarchy,  and  it  is  at  home 
in  the  sort  of  religion  which  Elijah  and  Elisha 
represent,  and  against  which  the  great  moral 
reforming  crusade  of  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah 
was  aimed. 

(ii.)  The  Elohist  (^'E")— i.e.,  Hupfeld's  se- 
cond user  of  the  name  Elohim — v/rites  under  the 
influence  of  the  moral  preaching  and  work  of  the 
prophet  Amos  and  his  comrades.  Therefore 
'*E"  was  written  between  750  and  700  B.C.,  at 
about  the  time  those  prophets  lived  and 
preached. 

(iii.)  The  Deuteronomist  school  ("D")  is  an 
immediate  development  of  the  Elohistic  school, 


174  Old  Testament  Testament 

and  makes  an  advance  upon  the  ideas  of  "E" 
with  the  same  ultimate  moral  aims;  therefore 
some  of  "  D  "  dates  from  700  B.C.,  or  even  a  few 
years  earlier.  The  "  D  "  school  must  have  gone 
on  working  all  the  way  through  the  following 
century  down  to  the  Reformation  of  King 
Josiah  in  620  B.C.,  which  used  "D"  as  its 
charter. 

(iv.)  The  oldest  part  of  the  book  of  Leviticus, 
cc.  xvii.  to  XX vi.,  commonly  known  as  the  "Holi- 
ness Code"  ("H"),  was  very  probably  produced 
by  a  contemporary  of  Ezekiel,  and  is  therefore 
from  a  little  after  600  B.C. 

(v.)  Finally,  the  Priestly  or  Foundation 
Document  ("P")  is  the  Torah-Book,  or  the 
Book-of- Doctrine,  brought  with  Nehemiah  from 
Persia  to  Jerusalem  in  450  B.C.,  and  then  and 
there  immediately  adopted  as  the  charter  of  the 
new  Jewish  community.  It  became,  therefore, 
the  only  sacred  book,  as  it  was  the  Charter- 
Doctrine-Book,  of  Judaism;  and  it  remained  so 
for  perhaps  a  century.  Then  men  saw  that  the 
older  writings  were  too  precious  to  be  lost;  so, 
to  preserve  them,  they  were  incorporated  in 
"P",  bit  by  bit,  as  we  have  said,  at  the  appro- 
priate points,  just  as  we  set  books  on  a  library 
shelf  according  to  subjects.  This  incorporation 
was  done  before  300  B.C.;  for  about  that  date 
someone  wrote  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  as  a 
new  attempt  to  form  a  "Bible"  with  fresh  and 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  175 

greatly  altered^  ideas  of  ceremonial  duties;  and 
Chronicles  uses  the  combination  of  "P,"  '*J," 
and  * '  E  "  as  the  material  for  this  new  Chronicle- 
Bible.  Such,  then,  is  the  succession  of  the 
documents. 

6.  Of   the    Critical    Construction    of   the 

Course    of    the    History    of    Hebrew 

AND  Jewish  Religion 

I.  In  1875  Bernhard  Duhm  published  his 
Theology  of  the  Prophets,  which  in  a  second  title 
he  called  A  Basis  for  Realising  the  Development 
of  the  History  of  the  Religion  of  Israel.  All 
scholars  have  recognised  a  classic  in  this  little 
book.  With  large  knowledge  of  Hebrew  litera- 
ture and  with  fine  philosophic  skill,  Duhm 
analysed  each  prophet's  oracles,  and  character, 
and  service;  beginning  with  Amos,  and  following 
on  with  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  Micah.  Then  he 
studies  the  legislation  of  Deuteronomy,  and, 
following  this,  he  examines  Nahum,  Zephaniah, 
Habakkuk,  Zechariah  xii.  ff.,  Jeremiah,  and 
EzekieL  Later  he  treats  of  the  men  ''of  the 
Persian  period,"  which  included,  he  said,  second 
Isaiah  and  various  anonymous  parts  of  the  first 

^E.g.,  the  author  of  Chronicles  makes  David,  and  not 
Moses,  the  author  of  most  of  the  Jewish  ceremonies. 
He  develops  the  priestly  system  far  beyond  "  P, "  yet 
he  uses  "  P"  as  material. 


176  Old  Testament  Criticism 

Isaiah ;  alsoHaggai,  Zechariah,  Joel,  and  Malachi. 
In  Duhm's  judgment,  Hebrew  religion  ended 
with  Malachi  in  500  B.C.  What  followed,  in- 
cluding "P,"  was  Judaism — not  properly  a 
part  of  Hebraism,  but  its  heir.  The  finest  fea- 
tures in  the  work  of  Duhm  are,  first,  certainly 
his  intimate  acquaintance  with  each  part  of 
the  literature  discussed  and  his  exact  exposition 
of  the  nature  of  each  writer;  but  he  shows  also 
singular  skill  in  tracing  the  connection  between 
each  prophet  and  his  successor. 

2.  The  effect  of  Duhm's  work  was  manifest  at 
once.  There  used  to  be  taught  in  books  and 
university  lectures  before  that  date  a  so-called 
"Old  Testament  theology,"  which  said  some- 
what as  follows:  "We  expound,  first,  Mosaism 
— i.e.,  Moses  as  inspired  of  God  to  set  forth  in  the 
desert  all  the  great  features  of  the  nature  of 
God  in  Creation,  in  Providence,  and  in  Revela- 
tion; also  the  features  of  man's  nature,  his 
covenant  with  God,  his  theocratic  system  of 
government,  the  Levitical  priesthood,  etc., 
etc.,  with  all  details  of  Mosaic  worship  in  the 
sanctuary,  its  offerings,  and  its  festivals."  All 
this  used  to  be  set  forth  without  any  hint  or 
thought  of  the  idea  of  perspective,  which  is  so 
essential  in  any  true  exhibition  of  the  life  of  a 
people.  "All  those  things  of  God  and  man," 
said  the  old  method,  "were  revealed  to  Moses; 
scarcely  one  of  them  was  ever  known  before 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  177 

him;  all  were  shown  to  him  in  complete  system, 
and  needing  no  addition  or  development  for 
ever:  if" — ah,  here  entered  the  difficulty — if 
''only  the  people  had  kept  the  faith"  thus  once 
for  all  delivered.  But  they  did  not  keep  it; 
they  fell.  So  the  books  and  lectures  described  a 
new  set  of  ideas  called  "  Prophetism. "  But  this 
new  prophetic  revelation  had  again  also  no 
perspective,  oddly  enough,  although  it  was 
given  by  many  men  and  at  different  times. 
Mimhile  dictii;  the  features  of  life  in  heaven 
and  earth  were  the  same  for  all  those  prophets, 
with  no  single  hint  of  any  development.  Such 
was  the  customary  instruction  by  theological 
Professors.  The  plan  and  theory  may  be  seen, 
only  slightly  improved,  in  Oehler's  Old  Testament 
Theology,  ptiblished  1873,  and  in  the  earlier 
editions  of  Schultz's  work  on  the  topic.  All  was 
a  dead-level.  Was  it  any  wonder  that  religious 
teachers,  trained  on  such  food,  had  to  see  the 
people  steadily  slipping  away  out  of  their  hands, 
away  from  their  pastoral  care  and  away  from 
worship  beneath  the  pulpits  where  such  training 
influenced  the  sermons? 

3.  The  new  understanding  came,  and  worked 
speedily  a  change;  at  first,  indeed,  a  strangely 
inadequate  change.  It  was  realised  that  most 
of  the  regulations  commonly  called  "law"  were 
actually  of  later  date  than  were  the  utterances 
of  the    prophets;  so  in  some  cases  the  curious 


lyS  Old  Testament  Criticism 

result  appeared  that  authors  who  had  pubHshcd 
books  on  Old  Testament  theology  on  the  old 
plan  issued  new  editions  that  were  simply  the 
old  books  very  curiously  altered.  The  text 
was  the  same  as  before,  save  that  Part  L,  on 
"  Mosaism" — with  all  its  dead-level  of  system — 
was  set  second  in  order  as  Part  IL ;  while  the  old 
Part  IL,  on  "Prophetism" — with  the  other 
dead-level — now  stood  first,  and  was  pro- 
claimed to  be  really  Part  L!  Such  teaching  left 
unaltered  all  the  lack  of  perspective,  and  per- 
petuated the  mischievous  absence  of  the  idea 
of  development.  So  tight  was  the  grip  of  the  old 
tradition;  so  blinding  had  it  been  to  the  mind. 
But  Duhm's  work  has  changed  all  these  feeble 
methods. 

4.  Immediately  after  the  issue  of  Duhm's 
Theology  of  the  Prophets  there  appeared  Well- 
hausen's  History  of  Israel,  the  publication  of 
which  in  the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica  under  the 
direction  of  Robertson  Smith,  awakened  English 
theologians  to  the  absolute  necessity  of  diligently 
setting  their  house  in  order.  And  now  it  was 
that  there  arose  the  bitterest  outcry  against  the 
"Higher  Criticism."  Platforms  and  pulpits 
cried  out  that  the  Higher  Critics  were  doing  two 
wrong  things:  they  were  altering  the  pages  of 
Scripture,  and  they  were  teaching  that  the  world 
was  actuaUy  created  by  "Evolution,"  that  in- 
vention of  Charles  Darwin.     To  this  day  some 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now   179 

philosophers  think  to  act  wisely  in  denouncing 
Higher  Criticism  as  based  entirely  on  Hegel's 
teaching  that  history  and  development  are  the 
essential  method  and  records  of  God's  working. 
It  is  astonishing  to  hear  these  men ;  for  develop- 
ment goes  on  without  regarding  them,  and  even 
they  move  forward  a  little  day  by  day.  It  may 
be  noted  here  that  the  term  "Higher  Criticism" 
does  not  mean  in  any  case  a  science  by  itself; 
it  is  simply  the  work  that  every  student  of  any 
literature  does  and  must  do  when  he  seeks  to 
test  the  supposed  course  of  the  history  of  life 
as  seen  in  literature.  The  outcry  against  the 
"Higher  Critics"  was  in  reality  an  effort  to 
remain  wedded  to  a  conception  of  a  history  with- 
out any  development  in  it.  But  that  effort  has 
passed  away.  There  are  now  very  few  teachers 
who  do  not  say  plainly  that  the  critical  and 
exact  idea  of  history  which  includes  in  it  the 
fact  of  development  is  the  only  really  living 
blessing  both  for  teachers  and  for  taught,  both 
in  church  and  school,  and  in  the  wider  thinking  of 
society.  Men  are  everywhere  demanding  such 
a  picture  of  the  story  of  Providence.  With 
singular  eagerness,  men  are  everywhere  reading 
the  history  of  Israel,  of  its  people  and  its  religion, 
as  these  are  based  on  the  new  grasp  of  the  Old 
Testament  literature.  Kittel's  history,  that  of 
Stade,  the  short  sketches  by  Addis,  Marti,  the 
present  writer,  and  others,  are  widely  read  both 


i8o  Old  Testament  Criticism 

by  pew  and  by  pulpit,  in  the  school  and  in  the 
home.  The  new  story  of  the  coming  of  Jesus, 
through  the  developments  of  Hebrew  history, 
is  now  almost  a  universal  possession. 

7.  Concerning    other    Books    besides    the 
Narratives 

Our  task  would  not  be  finished  unless  we 
pointed  to  the  steady  progress  of  critical  work 
in  other  departments  of  the  Old  Testament 
besides  that  of  the  Pentateuch.  A  few  words  on 
those  other  parts  will  suffice  to  indicate  how 
thoroughly  the  task  is  faced,  and  how  the 
same  great  ends  on  which  we  have  been  looking 
are  still  being  attained. 

I.  The  narrative  books  beyond  Deuteronomy 
have  always  been  much  in  the  mind  of  the 
analyst.  The  use  of  the  word  "Hexateuch" 
meant  that  Joshua  was  long  ago  recognised  to 
be  of  exactly  the  same  sort  of  origin  as  were  the 
five  Torah  books,  although  Joshua  had  for  ages 
been  held  by  the  Jews  to  be  the  work  of  some 
man  of  a  second  rank  of  inspiration  as  com- 
pared with  the  intimate  manner  of  speech  which 
God  was  believed  to  have  allowed  between 
Moses  and  himself.  So  said  the  "Sayings  of 
the  Fathers"  in  the  Mishnah.  But  the  argu- 
ments for  inclusion  of  Joshua  among  the  books  of 
narrative  that  had  to  be  studied  apply  with  quite 


By  k ind  perm iss io n 


Karl  Budde 

D.  Theol.,  Professor  of  Theology,  Marbury  University 
iSl 


l82  Old  Testament  Criticism 

equal  force  to  "Judges,"  the  "Samuel"  books, 
and  the  books  of  "Kmgs."  The  process  of 
analysis  which  dealt  with  the  former  five  or 
six  books  deals  now  with  all  these  other  five 
at  the  same  time;  the  "J"  "E,"  "D,"  and 
"P"  documents  are  found  in  all  eleven  books, 
along  with  other  material  also.  Budde  has 
done  masterly  work  in  this  direction.  We  must 
not  suppose  that  all  the  material  used  was  ob- 
tained from  those  four  sources;  for  plainly  in 
Genesis,  chapter  xiv.  a  source  is  used  which 
differs  from  every  one  of  the  writings  "  J , " 
"E,""D,"and"P." 

2.  A  new  impulse  to  the  critical  study  of  the 
Old  Testament  has  come  from  the  science  of 
Assyriology,  which  has  been  created  within 
the  past  fifty  years.  We  know  now  the  litera- 
ture and  history  of  a  great  and  brilliant  civilisa- 
tion that  existed  for  ages  in  the  lands  of  Tigris 
and  the  Euphrates,  long  before  an  Abraham  can 
have  been  born  or  could  emigrate  thence.  A 
remarkable  code  of  laws  was  published  by  King 
Hammurabi  500  years  before  Abraham  lived; 
and  while  such  a  civilisation  rested,  on  the 
one  hand,  on  previous  millenniums  of  develop- 
ment, it  provided,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
basis  for  the  far  later  rise  and  growth  of  Hebrew 
organisations. 

3.  It  was  wisely  said  by  Canon  Cheyne  that, 
just  when  the  lamented  Professor  W.  Robertson 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  183 

Smith  died,  criticism  entered  on  an  almost 
entirely  new  field.  That  field  is  the  "Prophets " 
themselves,  and  the  "Psalms,"  and  much  of 
the  more  especially  Jewish  writings.  Many 
men  have  busied  themselves  with  minute  analy- 
sis of  the  Prophets'  writings,  seeking  to  find  out 
exactly,  where  at  all  possible,  what  were  the 
original  and  actual  oracles  of  those  men,  and 
what  have  been  the  later  additions.  In  this 
class  of  work  no  one  has  been  more  devotedly 
earnest  than  the  venerable  Canon  Professor 
Cheyne  himself.  Weighted  now  with  years 
and  feeble  health,  he  still  commands  his  spirit 
with  singular  strength  to  the  task  of  searching 
into  these  fi.elds.  On  "Isaiah"  especially  he 
and  Duhm  have  toiled,  so  to  speak,  in  the  same 
harness  and  with  wonderful  results,  both  analy- 
tic and  constructive.  In  Boston,  U.S.A.,  also, 
a  gifted  student.  Professor  Kellner,  has  done 
fine  service  concerning  Isaiah ;  and  more  recently 
Mr.  G.  H.  Box's  Isaiah  has  put  the  very  latest 
critical  result  within  the  reach  of  English  readers. 
Professor  Duhm  has  laid  his  hand  upon  the 
precious  book  of  Jeremiah  also,  with  the  result 
that  that  prophet  lives  again  before  us  in  his  own 
real  song  and  cry,  letting  us  feel  what  were  the 
spiritual  facts  just  as  Judah  was  about  to  fall. 
But  Duhm  shows  us  also  the  commentaries  that 
were  written  in  ages  afterwards  on  the  edges 
of  the  old  prophet's  pages,  and  that  were  then 


184  Old  Testament  Criticism 

incorporated  with  the  original  so  closely  that 
they  had  come  to  seem  to  be  the  prophet's  own. 
Duhm  lights  up  both  the  mind  and  devotion  of 
the  prophet,  and  also  those  of  the  Jewish  com- 
mentators of  the  later  centuries.  And  Duhm 
is  not  at  all  alone  in  such  work;  he  is  one  of  a 
host  of  workmen  on  this  field  both  in  England 
and  abroad. 

4.  At  the  present  moment  all  these  operations 
seem  in  some  sense  secondary  in  value  to  dis- 
cussions of  the  ''Psalms."  For  it  grows  singu- 
larly evident  that  that  collection  of  poems  was 
really  the  Worship-Song  of  the  people  who 
stood  around  Jesus  in  the  eventful  and  fateful 
first  generations  of  our  era.  The  story  of  our 
attainment  to  the  present  state  of  psalmody 
criticism  is  long;  only  recently  several  notable 
contributions  have  been  made  to  the  matter. 
Professor  Cheyne's  latest  edition  of  his  Psalms 
is  so  thoroughly  different  from  that  given  in  his 
Bampton  Lectures  of  1889  that  it  shows  clearly 
a  most  marked  change  in  the  field  dtiring  the 
fairly  short  period  intervening.  The  finest  work 
by  far — work  that  promises  to  be  epoch-making, 
and  not  likely  to  be  superseded  for  many  a 
day — is  the  commentary  on  "Psalms"  by  Duhm, 
wherein  he  points  out,  as  present  in  the  Psalms, 
the  very  features  of  society  as  it  lived  and 
thought  about  the  year  a.d.  i.  The  Pharisees 
and  the  Saints,  their  hatreds  and  their  beautiful 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  185 

devout ness — all  are  uttered  in  those  poems. 
We  are  beginning  to  see  that  we  have  in  our 
hands  the  thoughts  and  the  utterances  of  the 


By  k  171  d  pe  r  m  iss  ion:  Front  /';  -of.   Jfr  llh  an  sen 

Heinrich    Ewald 

Theol.  Dr.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament  Theology,    Gottingen 

actual  audience  to  whom  John  preached  ''Re- 
pent," to  whom  Jesus  spoke  his  "Comfort," 
and  to  whom  Paul  preached  so  eloquently. 


iS6  Old  Testament  Criticism 

5.  And  now  our  closing  word  is  that  Old 
Testament  criticism  has  been  so  successful,  and 
so  infectious  through  its  success,  that  to-day  at 
last  the  students  of  the  New  Testament  have 
set  diligently  about  their  duty  and  task  of 
applying  the  same  methods  to  the  analysis  of 
the  Gospels  and  of  the  Epistles.  The  conse- 
quence is  that  these  New  Testament  students 
are  disclosing  the  need  of  a  far  more  thorough 
acquaintance  with  the  literature  of  the  people 
among  whom  the  New  Testament  events  were 
accomplished.  Therefore  the  demand  is  be- 
coming stringent  for  closer  study  of  every  sort 
of  record  coming  from  the  last  stages  of  what 
must  be  called  the  Old  Testament  territory. 
The  knowledge  of  Psalms,  both  those  in  the 
"David"  books  and  those  in  the  "Solomon" 
book ;  knowledge  also  of  the  books  of  "Wisdom, " 
of  those  inside  the  Old  Testament  and  those 
without  it;  acquaintance  with  the  "Pseud- 
epigraphs"  such  as  "Ezra,"  "Daniel,"  "Enoch" 
and  the  Hebrew  original  of  the  "Revelation  of 
John" — all  this  is  now  being  sought  eagerly; 
and  it  is  seen  that  only  from  the  critical  student 
of  the  Old  Testament  are  the  answers  to  be 
obtained.  Great  areas  for  investigation  are  yet 
unmentioned — to  wit,  first,  the  "Targums," 
those  Jewish  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures  in 
the  Aramaic  tongue  spoken  in  Palestine  about 
A.D.  i;  secondly,  also  the  Mishnah  and  its  legal 


Modern  Criticism  from  Astruc  till  Now  187 

interpretations  and  enlargements  of  the  Mosaic 
Ethics.  Nor  are  these  all  the  tasks  that  now 
occupy  the  Old  Testament  critic  or  student. 
For  it  grows  more  and  more  evident  that  much 
of  the  speech  and  the  thinking  of  the  people  of 
the  New  Testament  was  simply  a  continuation 
of  the  vocabulary  and  the  mind  of  centuries  of 
pre-Christian  Jews.  Has  not  Schiirer  just  told 
us  how  the  New  Testament  Greek  was  the 
ordinary  speech  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt  through 
one  to  four  hundred  years  B.C.?  Therefore 
the  Old  Testament  workman  must  now  be 
more  diligent  than  ever,  busy  providing  in- 
struction in  all  these  matters  for  his  comrade 
students  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures. 
Old  Testament  criticism  has  accomplished  a 
wonderful  work  in  its  primary  field;  then  it  has 
inspired  New  Testament  criticism;  and  that 
again  has  bidden  the  Old  Testament  critical 
student  start  on  a  new  career,  as  brilliant  in  its 
promise  as  was  ever  its  older  service. 

Such  is  the  history  of  Old  Testament  Criticism. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I. — The  Scientific  Encyclopedias  are 

I.  The  Jewish,  12  vols.;  2.  The  Bihlica, 
4  vols.;  3.  The  New  Bible  Dictionary,  5  vols.; 
also  4.  Herzogs  Real-Encydopedie,  and  5. 
The  Britannica,  just  about  to  be  issued  in  new 
editions. 

II. — History  of  Criticism 

1.  Cheyne's  Founders  of  Old  Testament 
Criticism.     1893. 

2.  Wellhausen's  Sketch  in  Bleek' s  Einleitnng. 
1878. 

3.  Diestel,  Geschichte  d.  Alien  Testaments. 
1869. 

4.  Richard  Simon,  Histoire  Critique  dti  V. 
Testament.      1685. 

5.  See  also  Addis's  Documents;  Moore  in 
Bacon's  Genesis;  and  the  various  Introductions: 
Driver's,  ist  ed.,  1891;  Bennett's,  1891; 
Strack's,  1906;  Reuss's  Geschichte  d.  Heiligen 
Schriften,  1890;  Swete's  Septuagint,  1902. 

III. — Discussions  of  Special  Problems 

I .  Spinoza,  Tractatus  theologico-politicus.  Tr. 
Elwes,  1883. 

189 


190  Bibliography 

2.  Spencer,  De  legihiis  Hebrceoriim  ritualihus. 
1685. 

3.  Astruc,  Conjectures  stir  .  .  .  Genese.    1753. 

4.  Geddes,  Bible  Translated,  1792;  Critical 
Remarks,  1800. 

5.  Ilgen,  Urkunden  d.  Jenisalemischeft 
Arcliivs.     1798. 

6.  De  Wette,  Detiteronominm,  1805;  Beitrdge 
sur  Einleitnng,  1806;  Einleitung  i7i  d.  A.  T.,  ist 
ed.,  1817. 

7.  Ysitkes  Biblische  Theologie.     Berlin,  1835. 

8.  George,  Die  Jildischen  Feste  u.  Kritik  d. 
Gesetzgebung,  1835. 

9.  Ewald's  Eifileitiing  in  d.  Geschichte  d. 
Volkes  Israel.  3ded.,  1864,  perhaps  the  greatest 
of  his  host  of  works. 

10.  }lVi\)ic\d'^Quellen  d.  Genesis.     1853. 

11.  Riehm,  Die  Gesetzgebung  Mosis  im  Lande 
Sinai.     Gotha,  1854. 

12.  Colenso,  The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of 
Joshua  Critically  Examined.  Seven  volumes, 
from  1862  onwards. 

13.  Graf,  Die  geschichtlichen  Bilcher  d.  A.  T.; 
(si)  Genesis,    etc.;  (h)  Chronik.     1865. 

14.  Kuenen,  Onderzoek  naar  het  ontstaan  en 
de  verzameling  van  de  boeken  des  0.  Verbonds. 
1885.     Tr.  Wicksteed,  1886. 

15.  Wellhausen,  Die  Composition  des  Hexa- 
teuchs.  1885.  Treatises  on  Samuel,  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees,  The  Smaller  Prophets,  History 
of  Israel  (translated) . 


Bibliography  191 

16.  Budde,  Die  Bilcher  Richter  u.  Samuel.  1890. 

17.  Addis,   The  Documents  of  the  Ilexateuch. 
1892. 

18.  Bacon,  Genesis;  Triple  Tradition  of  Exo- 
dus. 1893-4. 

19.  Holzinger,  Einleitung  in  den  Hexateuch. 

1893. 

20.  Kautzsch,    History    of   0.    T.    Literature. 
Tr.  Taylor,  1898. 

IV. — Serviceable  Texts 

1 .  The  Polychrome  Bible.  English :  Leviticus, 
Joshua,  Judges,  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  Psalms;  Hebrew 
of  the  same,  and  Genesis,  Numbers,  Samuel, 
Kings,  Jeremiah,  Proverbs,  Job,  Daniel,  Ezra- 
Nehemiah,  Chronicles.  In  each,  the  original 
sources  are  printed  in  different  colours. 

2.  Hexateuch,  Introduction  by  Carpenter 
and  Battersby.     1900. 

3.  Kit t el  edits  Biblia  Hebraica.  A  set  of 
critical  texts. 

4.  Field's  Hexapla  of  Origen.  Clarendon 
Press,  1875. 

5.  Lagarde's  Lucianic  Text  of  the  Septnagint. 
1883.  Lagarde's  many  works  bear  on  construc- 
tion of  a  critical  Greek  text  of  the  O.  T., 
preparatory  to  a  critical  Hebrew  text. 

V. — Commentaries 

To  name  the  many  excellent  commentaries 
were  impossible.     Cheyne's   Isaiah,  and  Box's 


192  Bibliography 

also,  and  Driver's  Samuel  are  among  the  best. 
In  the  ''  International "  Series  and  the  "Century  " 
Series  are  some  good  volumes. 

VI. — On  History 

1.  Zunz,  Die  Gottesdienstlichen  Vortrdge  der 
J  lid  en.     1832. 

2.  Herzfeld's  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel. 
1863. 

3.  Graetz's  Geschichte  der  Jtiden.  Tr.  Miss 
Lowy.     1 89 1. 

4.  Stade,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel.  1887-9. 

5.  Kittel,  History  of  the  Hebrews.  Tr.  Tay- 
lor.    1895. 

6.  W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testament 
i?i  the  Jewish  Church,  1892;  Prophets  of  Israel, 
1895. 

7.  Wellhausen,  see  above. 

8.  Duhm,  Theologie  der  Propheteji,  als  Grnnd- 
lage  fur  d.  Entwickelungs geschichte  d.  Israeli- 
tischen  Religion.     1875. 

9.  Cheyne,  Jewish  Religious  Life  After  the 
Exile.     1898. 

10.  Addis,  Hebrew  Religion.     1906. 

11.  Armstrong's    translation    of    Knappert's 
Religion  of  Israel. 

12.  Marti's  Religioji  of  the  Old  Testament. 

13.  Cornill's  Prophets  of  Israel. 

14.  The  present  author's  Old  Testament  Theo- 
logy, I.  and  II. ;  Hints  on  Old  Testament  Theology; 


Bibliography  193 

Hebrew  Theology  and  Ethics;  and  Abraham  and 
the  Patriarchal  Age. 

VI I. — On  the  General  History  of  Religion 
AND  Christianity 

W.  R.  Smith's  Religion  of  the  Semites;  Dill's 
Roman  Society  from  Nero  to  Marcus  Aiireliiis, 
and  I71  the  Last  Century  of  the  Western  Empire; 
Glover's  Conflict  of  Religions  in  the  Early 
Roman  Empire;  Hase's  Kirchengeschichte;  Har- 
nack's  History  of  Doctrine;  Picton's  Man  and  the 
Bible. 


INDEX 

Page 

Aben  Ezra 122,  133,  136 

Abraham 19  ff.,  30,  87  ff.,  182 

Addis 138,  179 

Akiba 115 

Amoraim 116 

Amos 16  ff.,  29,  33,  40,  173  ff. 

Annotators 64  ff. 

Aquila 98 

Aramaic 80  ff.,  122,  133,  140,  186 

Ark 49  ff.,  54  ff.,  74 

Assyria 16,  65,   182 

Astruc 137,  146,  149,  154,  157  ff. 

Augustine 105 

Authorised  texts 99 

Babylon 42  ff.,  74  ff.,  no  ff.,  116  ff. 

Bacon 49,  138,  158  ff. 

Benevolence 90  ff. 

Bible  Society 148 

Bibliolatry 98 

Blood-descent 88 

Box 38,  183 

Budde 182 

Buxtorfs 143  ff- 

Canon 83  ff.,  91,  95,  99  ff.,  113  ff. 

Castellus I43 

Celsus 93  ff- 

Ceremonial 168  ff.,  174 

Cheyne 38,  138,  182  ff. 

Christ 87,  93,  III  ff. 

Christianity..  .3  ff.,  12,  83,  88  ff.,  102  ff.,  in  ff.,  117  ff., 

128,  129,  139 

Chronicles .,.  1 10,  1 74  ff . 

Clement 93,    96 

195 


196  Index 


Page 

Colenso 87,  154,  168  ff. 

Comfort-poem 42  ff. 

Complutensian 140 

Concordance 143 

Creation 167  ff. 

Cyrus 43 

David 19,  60,  78,  173,  175,  186 

Decalogue 20  ff.,  25,  30,  34,  81,   115 

Deutero-Isaiah 42  ff.,  74 

Deuteronomy 26  ff.,  41  ff.,  133,  163  ff.,  173,  180 

Dill 92 

Dittography 55 

Documentary  hypothesis 160 

Documents,  original 14,  48  ff.,  153  ff.,  172  ff. 

Dragoman 81 

Driver 29  ff. 

ECCLESIASTICISM 90  ff.,  I02  ff. 

Economics 90  ff. 

Egypt 16,  75,  93,   100,   120,   124,   187 

Elders 108 

TT  Ipc)  CO  r*  T  T  "2 

Elohist '. '. '.  '.'.'.'.'.'.6  ff.i  15,  19  ff.,  33,  60  ff.',' 1 57  ff.',  172  ff. 

El  and  Elohim 22,   79,  158  ff.,  161,  173 

English  Polyglot I40  ff . 

Evolution .  .' 1 78   ff . 

Ewald 39,  152,  161 

Exile 10,  41  ff.,  74,   172 

Exodus 19,  28.  48  ff. 

Exposition 1 16  ff.,  132 

Ezekiel 41,  61,  165  ff.,  174  ff. 

Ezra 108,   1 10,   134,   186 

Foundation-Document 157  ff.,  166  ff. 

Fragmentary  hypothesis 161 

France 121,  126  ff.,  140,  154,  157 

Francke 144 

Fuerst 144,    151 

Gamaliel  1 115 

Gamaliel  II 1 15 

Gaonim no,  119,  120 

Geddes 138,  145 


Index  197 

Page 

Gemara no 

Genesis.  .  14  ft".,  22,  26,  48  ft".,  59,  60,  82,  145,  149,  157  ft'., 

166  ft.,  182 

George 165    ft. 

Germany 121,  126  ft.,  144,  153,  160,  165  ft.,  172 

Gesenius 151 

Glass 144 

Glosses 37,  63  ft. 

Glover 92    ff . 

Gnostics 87  ff . ,  96 

Gospels .84  ff.,  112,  186 

Graetz 86,  90,  107  ff.,  126 

Grammar 151,   153 

Greeks 55,  y^  ft.,  75,  93,  97  ff. 

Hagada , 1 18,  123  ff. 

Hagar 19,  20 

Halacha 119 

Hammurabi 182 

Harnack 92,  94,  95,  loi  ff. 

Hase 102 

Hebraism 176 

Hegel 149,    179 

Hexapla 97  ff- 

Hexateuch 138  ff.,  170,  180 

Higher  Criticism 1 78  ff . 

High  Priest 48,  56  ff.,  166 

Hillel 115 

History  and  Historical  Method 132,  135  ff.,  142  ff., 

149,  165,  175  ff. 

Hobbes 142,  163 

Holiness  Code 41  ff.,  174 

Holland   129,  135,  157 

Hosea , 16,  29  ff.,  40,  175 

Hupfeld 161  ff.,  173 

Iahweh 15,  17  ff.,  28  ff.,  44,  49,  53,  61,  66  ff.,  71,  74, 

79,  87  ff.,  Ill,  158,  160 

lahwist  and  lahwistic 6  ff.,  14  ff.,  19,  29,  60,  161,  172 

Ilgen 160  ff. 

Immortality yj 

Imperial  Christianity 102  ff.,  117  ff. 

Incense-altar 52  ff. 


198  Index 

Page 

Isaiah 16,  23,  29  ff.,  36  ff.,  42  ff.,  65,  74,  175,  183 

Islam 119  ff.,  124 

Jabne  or  Jamnia 113 

Jeremiah 64  ff.,  165,  175,  183  ff. 

Jerome 99  ff- 

Jerusalem 65  ff.,  81,  108  ff.,  174 

Jesus 5,9ff.,83ff.,  Ill  ff.,  139,  180,  184 

Jewish  Encyclopaedia 125,   128,  157 

Job 47 

Joshua 133.  180 

Josiah 29,  41,  163,  174 

Judah,  the  Prince 115 

Judah 43,  65,  183 

Judaism 3,  12,  57,  59,  75.77.  88  ff.,  98,  103,  106  ff., 

115,  120,  128,  174  ff. 
Judges 133.  182 

Kabbala 122  ff. 

Kallir no 

Kant 40.  149 

Karaism 120 

Kellner 183 

Kimchi  family ,    123 

Kings 14,  26,  182 

Kittel 179 

Kostlin 139 

Kuenen 170  ff- 


Lagarde 153 

Lamentations 117 

Latin  text 100  ff.,  104  ff. 

Law. 75.  94.  I04.  no,  131,  145,  163  ff.,  175  ff. 

Lessing 128 

Levites 41.  48,  I45,  176 

Leviticus 41  ff.,  165  ff.,  174 

Lexicons 151  ff- 

Linguistic  study 142  ff.,151  ff. 

Lord 87,  III 

Lower  Criticism 58,  91 

Lowth 138 

Lucian n .  94 


Index  199 

Pace 

Luther 12,  123,  126,  136,  139  ff. 

Lyra •  •  .        126 

Maccabean 78 

Maimonides 122  ff. 

Manasseh 27 

Marcion 93  ff.,  98 

Mark 85 

Marti I79 

Masorah 1 18  ff. 

Matthew 83  ff. 

Melanchthon 126 

Mendelssohn 128 

Micah 16,  175 

Michaelis 144 

Midrashim 117,  124 

Miracles 132 

Mishna,  or  Mishnah no,  118  ff.,  120,  127,  iSo,  186 

Morality 8,  17  ff.,  25  ff.,  no,  114 

Mosaic  Doctrine .  .48,  59  ff.,  80  ff.,  84,  iioff.,  116,  121,  125, 

163  ff.,  174,  176  ff. 
Moses.  . .  20  ff.,  61,  80,  83,  98,  133,  140  ff.,  163,  176,  180 
Mysticism 122    ff. 

Nathan  der  Weise 128 

Nehemiah 3,  48,  59  ^m   108,  166,  174 

New  Testament 13.  94.  104.  148,  186  ff. 

Oehler 177 

Old  Testament  Theology 176  ff. 

Olshausen i53 

Origen n,  92  ff.,  96  ff.,  103  ff. 

Oxford 136,  151 

Palestine 16,  19,  22,  75,  80  ff.,  94,  100,  no  ff., 

116  ff.,  186 

Paris  Polyglot 140 

Paul .  .  .  .' 75,  86  ff.,  94,  1 12,  185 

Pentateuch 14-49.  59  ff-  ^>3.  88,  89,  115,  127,  133, 

140  ff.,  146,  161,  165  ff.,  180 

Pfleiderer 151 

Pharisees 78.  83,  112  ff.,  184 

Picton 98,  148 

Pietists 144 


200  Index 


Page 

Pillar-passages 83 

"Piuts"     121 

Polyglots 140   ff. 

Poor 90  ff. 

Priestly  Document 48  ff.,  59  ff.,  74,  156  ff.,  166  ff.,  174 

Prophets..  .  16  ff.,  30,  34  ff.,  60,  64  ft".,  108,  131,  165,  173  ff., 

183  ff. 

Proverbs 76,  1 86 

Psalms 76  ff.,  183  ff.,  186 

Pseudepigraphs 186 

Pumbeditha 116 

Quotations 85  ff . 

Rabbinical  Bible 122,  140 

Rabbis no,  123,  128,  133,  140 

Rashi 123,    126 

Reading  of  the  Bible 148,  179 

Reformers  and  Reformation 27  ff.,  102,  106  ff.,  123, 

I26ff.,  I36ff. 

Religion  of  the  Semites 145 

Renaissance 12,  121,  136,  148 

Rcuchlin 123,    126  ff. 

Riehm 166 

Rufinus 99    ff. 

Saadia 120 

Sadducees 78,  1 14 

Sadoc 114 

Saints 77  ff.,  184 

Samuel 133,  188 

Sanhedrin 1 10,  1 13 

Sayings  of  the  Fathers 112,  180 

Schmiedel 11,    84 

Schultz 177 

Schiirer 187 

Scythians 64  ff. 

Seboraim 1 1 7  ff . 

Septuagint 55  ff.,  82,98  ff. 

Servant  or  slave-songs 43  ff.,  74 

Shammai 115 

vSherira no 

Simon,  Richard 140  ff.,  145 

Sinai 21,  53,  61 


Index  201 


Page 

Sirach 76 

Smith,  W.  R 145,  154,  178,  183 

vSolomon 76  ff . ,  1 86 

Song  of  Songs 113 

Spain Ill,  119,  121,  124  ff.,  140 

Spencer 145 

Spinoza  ....  12,  107,  123,  129  ff.,  137  ff.,  141,  144  ff.,  151, 

163 

Stade 151,  179 

Steuernagel 166 

Sura 1 16,  120 

Symmachus 98 

Synagogue 106  ff.,  116  ff.,  127 

Tabernacle 49  ff. 

Talmud 126  ff. 

Tanchuma 116 

Tannaim 114 

Targum 81   ff.,  122,  133,  186 

Tertullian 93,    96 

Theodotion 98 

Tiberias 116 

Torah 48,  59  ff.,  82,  112  ff.,  174,  180 

Torquemada 125 

Trade 75 

Tribalism 17,25 

Universities no,  116,  119  ff. 

Vatke 1 49 

Versifying  Schools no,  121 

Vowel-signs 118,  136 

Vulgate 1 01,  104  ff. 

Walton 140  ff. 

Warburton 138 

Wellhausen 172,  178 

De  Wette 154,  161,  163 

Wisdom 75,  186 

Word  of  God 1 34 

Zadokites 41 

Zion 66 

Zunz 1 06  ff . 


A  History  of  the  Sciences 


^  Hitherto  there  have  been  few,  if  any, 
really  popular  works  touching  the  historical 
growth  of  the  various  great  branches  of 
knowledge.  The  ordinary  primer  leaves 
unexploited  the  deep  human  interest  which 
belongs  to  the  sciences  as  contributing  to 
progress  and  civilization,  and  calling  into 
play  the  faculties  of  many  of  the  finest 
minds.  Something  more  attractive  is 
wanted. 

11  The  above  need  in  literature  has  now 
been  met.  Each  volume  in  The  History 
of  Sciences  is  written  by  an  expert  in  the 
given  subject,  and  by  one  who  has  studied 
the  history  as  well  as  the  conclusions  of 
his  own  branch  of  science.  The  mono- 
graphs deal  briefly  with  the  myths  or 
fallacies  which  preceded  the  development 
of  the  given  science,  or  include  biographical 
data  of  the  great  discoverers.  Consider- 
ation is  given  to  the  social  and  political 
conditions   and   to   the   attitudes   of  rulers 

Q.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  York  London 


A  History  of  the  Sciences 

and  statesmen  in  furthering  or  in  hindering 
the  progress  of  the  given  science.  The 
volumes  record  the  important  practical 
application  of  the  given  science  to  the 
arts  and  life  of  civilized  mankind,  and 
also  contain  a  carefully-edited  bibliograph}^ 
of  the  subject.  Each  volume  contains  from 
twelve  to  sixteen  carefully-prepared  illus- 
trations, including  portraits  of  celebrated 
discoverers,  many  from  originals  not  hither- 
to reproduced,  and  explanatory  views  and 
diagrams.  The  series  as  planned  should 
cover  in  outline  the  whole  sphere  of  human 
knowledge. 

^  Science  is  to  be  viewed  as  a  product 
of  human  endeavor  and  mental  discipline, 
rather  than  taken  in  its  purely  objective 
reference  to  facts.  The  essential  purpose 
has  been  to  present  as  far  as  practicable 
the  historical  origins  of  important  dis- 
coveries, also  to  indicate  the  practical 
utility  cf  the  sciences  to  human  life. 

Q.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  York  London 


A  History  of  the  Sciences 

Each  volume  is  adequately  illustrated,  attractively  printed, 
and  substantially  bound. 
i6mo.    Each,  net^  '/^  cents.  By  mail,  S_S  cents.    12  illustrations 

History  of  Astronomy 

By  George  Forbes,  M.A.,  F.R.S.,  iVl.Inst.  C.E.     • 

Formerly  Professor  of  Natural  Philosophy,  Anderson's 
Colleg'e,  Glasgow 

I  thank  you  for  the  copy  of  Forbes's  History  of  Astononiy 
received.  I  have  run  it  over,  and  think  it  very  good  indeed. 
The  plan  seems  excellent,  and  I  would  say  the  same  of  your 
general  plan  of  a  series  of  brief  histories  of  the  various 
branches  of  science.  The  time  appears  to  be  ripe  for  such  a 
series,  and  if  all  the  contributions  are  as  good  as  Prof. 
Forbes's,  the  book  will  deserve  a  wide  circulation,  and  will 
prove  very  useful  to  a  large  class  of  readers. — Extract  from  a 
letter  received  from  Garrett  P.  Serviss,  B.  S. 

History  of  Chemistry 

By  Sir  Edward  Thorpe,  C.B.,  LL.D.,  F.R.S. 

Author   of    "Essays    in    Historical    Chemistry,"    '•  Humphry 
Davy:  Poet  and  Philosopher,"  "Joseph  Priestley,"  etc. 

12  illustrations.  T700  vols.  Vol.  I — circa  2000  B.  C.  to  18^0 
A.D.  Vol.  II—iSjo  A.B.  to  date 
The  author  traces  the  evolution  of  intellectual  thought  in 
the  progress  of  chemical  investigation,  recognizing  the  various 
points  of  view  of  the  different  ages,  giving  due  credit  even  to 
the  ancients.  It  has  been  necessary  to  curtail  many  parts  of 
the  History,  to  lay  before  the  reader  in  unlimited  space 
enough  about  each  age  to  illustrate  its  tone  and  spirit,  the 
ideals  of  the  workers,  the  gradual  addition  of  new  points  of 
view  and  of  new  means  of  investigation. 

The  History  of  Old  Testament 
Criticism 

By  Archibald  Duff 

Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Old  Testament  Theology  in  the  United 
College,  Bradford 

The  author  sets  forth  the  critical  views  of  the  Hebrews  con- 
cerning their  own  literature,  the  early  Christian  treatment  of 
the  Old  Testament,  criticism  by  the  Jewish  rabbis,  and  criti- 
cibm  from  Spinoza  to  Astruc,  and  from  Astruc  until  the  present. 


In  Preparation 

The  History  of  Geography. 

By  Dr.  John  Scott  Keltie,  F.R.G.S.,  F.S.A..  Hon. 
Mem.  Geographical  Societies  of  Paris,  Berlin,  Rome, 
Brussels,  Amsterdam,  Geneva,  etc. 

The  History  of  Geology. 

By  Horace  B.  Woodward,  F.R.S.,  F.G.S.,  Assistar.t 
Director  of  Geological  Survey  of  England  and  Wales. 

The  History  of  Anthropology. 

By  A.  C.  Haddon,  M.A.,  Sc.D.,  F.R.S.,  Lecturer  in 
Ethnology,  Cambridge  and  London. 

The  History  of  New  Testament  Criticism. 

By  F.  C.  ConybeaRE,  M.A.,  late  Fellow  and  Praelector  of 
Univ.  Coll.,  Oxford  ;  Fellow  of  the  British  Academy; 
Doctor  of  Theology,  honoris  causa,  of  Giessen  ;  Officer 
d'Academie. 

Further  volumes  are  in  plan  on  the  following 
subjects: 

Mathematics  and  Mechanics — Molecular  Physics, 
Heat,  Light,  and  Electricity — Human  Physiology, 
Embryology,  and  Heredity — Acoustics,  Harmonics, 
and  the  Physiology  of  Hearing,  together  with  Optics, 
Chromatics,  and  Physiology  of  Seeing — Psychology, 
Analytic,  Comparative,  and  Experimental — Sociology 
and  Economics — Ethics — Comparative  Philology — 
Criticism,  Historical  Research,  and  Legends — Com- 
parative Mythology  and  the  Science  of  Religions — 
The  Criticism  of  Ecclesiastical  Institutions — Culture, 
Moral  and  Intellectual,  as  Reflected  in  Imaginative 
Literature  and  in  the  Fine  Arts — Logic — Philosophy 
— Education. 


New  York     Q.  P.  Putnam's  SOHS     London 


Date  Due 


Qtf<»»»'^ 


l^u^  ^  >/ 


Mix. 


;!;  h*    9  -    ;■'  ^ 


15        ^ 


m 


^-^"^ 


'5:^ 


r'  ',!B 


^t        BSllbO  D85 

History  of  Old  Testament  criticism 

Princeton  Theological  Semlnary-Speer  Library 


"^t    , 

' 

^ 

"     i 

» 

L 

,t,i,  p,ii  1  ,i5 

.=i't 

!i'it«J.'j  ,1  t5> 

''. 

,'  I'll 

SJ; 

~E 

'$'1 

■' 

; ;  'v 

;,;-;,' 

.'■,.;■!,  Y  ■'!<. 

,\ 

■ll' 

';:  *;J;f;ii''f 

a 

■J'^"'' 

M 

{■i^dii^ 

